iHi li if 11 ^R^tOFPRfWi^ 1255 •Kit v.l A HISTORICAL AND CRIITCAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT, WITH A NEW TRANSLATION, BY M.M. KALISCH, Phil Doc, M.A, LEVITICUS. PART I. Containing Chapters I to X, With Treatises on SACRincES and the Hebrew Priesthood. ENGLISH OR ABRIDGED EDITION. LONDON : LONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER. 1867. PRINTED BY CARL B. LORCK IN LEIPZIG. PREFACE. Nine years have elapsed since the publication of the second volume of this Commentary. But the author trusts that he has with some advantage adhered to the severe rule of the old master, ^'nonum prematur in annum". For though he devoted a considerable portion of the interval to the composition of his Hebrew Grammar, he never lost sight of the continuation of the work which he has made the task of his life, and which forms the centre of his studies and his reading. However, delay appeared to him, in one important respect, even more than desirable; it seemed to him almost im- perative. For a survey of the intellectual history of England during the last decennium will render it mani- fest that a change has been wrought which it is not too much to describe as an intellectual revohition. The highest questions that concern mankind were discuss- ed in works, which fell upon the public mind with the force of decisive battles, roused a spirit of regene- rating enquiry, and tended perceptibly to alter the entire current of national thought. In general history, a new impulse was given by the labours of Buckle, who, ignoring the idea of a supernatural education of our race, attempted consistently, if too sweepingly, to deduce the stages of human progress from psychological principles no less unfailing in their operation than the laws IV PREFACE. which govern tlie physical world. In the natural sciences, something like an overpowering shock was produced by the fearless and penetrating investigations of Darwin, Huxley, and Lyell, who, striving to exhibit man and the planet he inhabits, as organic parts of universal creation, courageously pierced into the mystery of the very genesis of men and things, and arrived at results startling by their boldness and incalculable in their scope and final bearing. And in the sphere of theology, an almost unprecedented commotion was caused by the "Essays and Reviews", moderate as they are in tendency and reserved in enunciation, by the acute and incisive demonstrations of Colenso, unsettling and in many cases uprooting long-cherished opinions or prejudices, and by the writings of Renan and Strauss, which, thanks to the close literary intercommunion that has sprung up between the continent and England, found here a no less powerful echo than in the countries to which they owed their origin. Thus traditional views are questioned in every branch of science and learning; and habits of logical thought, trained and fostered by works like those of John Stuart Mill, prove an invaluable auxiliary to comprehensive and trustworthy inferences. Our own time, disdaining to receive opinions from the past as an un- alterable heirloom and with unsuspecting reliance, is determined to assert the right of forming its own con- victions with unfettered independence. This general fermentation of minds, which the author could not but watch with intense interest, appeared to him peculiarly propitious for the reception of the con- clusions to which he has been led by his Biblical re- searches. He would fain hope that he has furnished a few available stones for that new edifice which it i^ the labour of our age to erect; that he has aided, however humbly and modestly, in supporting by arguments derived PREFACE. y from liis special department of study, the philosophical ideas which all genuine science at present seems ^ager to establish; and that he has in some slight degree succeeded in assigning to the Biblical documents their proper place in the future phases and struggles of our civilisation. But he ventures to prefer a double request to those into whose hands this volume may fall. First, he begs them not to judge of the results unless they have patiently followed him through the chain of arguments by which the conclusions were obtained ; for he has endeavoured so to arrange the facts and proofs that an attentive perusal will, he trusts, disclose their force and cogency, whereas desul- tory reading must' lead to hasty and unjust opinions. The second request he cannot make better than in the words with which Spinoza concludes the Introduction to his Tractatus Theologwo-poUticus : "To those w^ho are not accustomed to think rationally, I do not desire to recom- mend this book, since I have no reason to hope that they will in any way be gratified by it. For I know how stubbornly the mind clings to those prejudices which it has adopted under the appearance of religion. I know moreover, that it is as impossible to free the mass of men from superstition as it is to free them from fear . . . These therefore and all those who obstinately insist upon preconceived opinions, I do not invite to read this book, nay I would much rather wish them to leave it un- noticed, than to call forth strife by interpreting its con- tents perversely, and while gaining no advantage for them- selves, to cause injury to otljers who would argue with greater freedom if they were not checked by the one fatal belief that reason must be the handmaid of theology." It may be expedient to add a few explanations with regard to the economy of this volume. The Biblical text may be considered from three distinct points of view: VI PREFACE. (1.) It may be explained simply in a positive or ob- jective manner: the expositor investigates how the last compiler or reviser understood the meaning of the parts and the connection of the whole, and he endeavours to point out both the one and the other with the utmost care and completeness; he owes this tribute of respect and reverence especially to the superior genius of the man who conceived so vast a plan as that of the Penta- teuch, and who must be allowed to have possessed the ability of logical thought and style. This task has been chiefly attempted in the general notes of the Commentary. (2.) Or the text may be explained ci'itically and analjj- ticalbj: the expositor resolves the entire composition into its component parts; he examines and compares them, decides whether they contain differences in the con- ceptions or discrepancies in the statements, pursues the traces of older sources or original documents, which he distinguishes from later additions or modifications, and searches after the date and authorship of each portion; and then, on the basis of these enquiries, he draws conclusions Avith regard to the gradual development of religious culture among the Hebrews, and to the epoch when it attained the stage revealed in the section under consideration. This has mainly been undertaken in the philological remarks of the Commentary. (3.) Or, lastly, the text may be explained philosophi- calbj and treated constructively: the expositor analyses the absolute truth and the absolute value of the records; he ascertains how far the facts are historically reliable, and how far the religious notions are philosophically true ; he compares the Biblical documents with the historical traditions and religious systems of other nations; and he tests them especially by the most recent discoveries of science and the best results of speculative thought; thus he is enabled to determine to what extent PREFACE. yjl they deserve autliority, and in what degree they are binding on his own time; and then he may venture, as a last step, to build up the political or spiritual history of the Bible on its own intrinsic probability, and to propound religious and philosophical truths in harmony with all the scientific and literary aids at his disposal. This has principally been aimed at in the Treatises, Avhich therefore form, in a certain sense, the most important and distinctive portions of the book; and for this reason, the great extent which they occupy will neither be found surprising nor require justification; though they have rendered it impossible to compress the commentary on the whole of Leviticus into one volume. By separating these three methods, the author believes to be enabled to do full justice to the Hebrew wTiters, without curtailing the claims due to science, history, and philosophy. As of the preceding volumes, so of this one also, a larger edition is published simultaneously with this abridged one; it contains, besides the Hebrew text, philo- logical observations and copious classical and other references, and is designed for a critical study of the subjects discussed in the volume; and though the smaller edition embodies all the main results, and will, it is hoped, be found adapted for cursory reading, the author would strongly recommend the use of the larger work to all those who desire to be acquainted with the sources of his facts and the critical evidences of his opinions. — The next volume which will con- clude Leviticus, and will comprise, besides the Comment- ary, essays on the dietary precepts, the ordinances of purification, the marriage-laws, the festivals, and the moral teaching of the Bible, v>'ill, it is anticipated, be issued in the course of the following year, as it is in an advanced stage of preparation. VIII PREFACE. The author has every reason to feel grateful for the encouraging reception accorded to the earlier parts of this work; if, on a fair and dispassionate examination, their present successor meet even approximately with a like approval, he will he fortified hopefully to con- tinue his lahours, for the success of which he is chiefly anxious because he is convinced that the purpose to which they are devoted is intimately allied with our progress, our happiness, and even the practical regulation of our lives. M. Kalisch. London, April 22, 1867. CONTENTS. Introduction. p^^® I. The Connection between Exodus and Leviticus ... XI II. Division of Leviticus XII III. Its illogical Arrangement XV IV. Its component Parts XXI V. Chronological Order of the Laws contained in the first ten Chapters XXV VI. The Name of the Book XXXI VII. Its Importance — Preliminary Essay : On the Sacrifices of the Hebrews and OF other Nations. I. The Origin of Sacrifices 1 II. Eelative Age of Animal and Vegetable Sacrifices ... 8 III. History of Sacrifices among the Hebrews 11 IV. Purer Notions on Sacrifices 40 V. The Hebrew Appellation of Sacrifice and its Meaning. . 54 VI. General Survey and Classification of the Hebrew Sacrifices 57 VII. Animals and Vegetables ofi'ered 59 VIII. Qualification of the Offerings 08 IX. Symbolical Meaning of Objects connected with Sacrifices 79 1. Salt . . — 2. Oil 82 3. Wine 84 4. Frank-incense 85 5, 6. Wheat and Barley 86 7. Blood ■ 87 8. Pat 92 9. Leaven 94 10. Honey 96 11. Typical Explanation 100 X. Sacrificial Ceremonies and their Meaning 120 1. Preparation — 2. The Time 123 3. The Place — 4. Imposition of the Hand 12(; 5. Killing the Animal 1-9 6. Eeceiving of the Blood 131 7. The Sprinkling of the Blood 132 8. The Flaying of the Animal 135 9. Dissecting the Animal 130 10. Washing the Parts of the Victim 137 11. The Rite of Waving — X CONTENTS. Page 12. The Rite of Heaving 139 13. The Burning of the Offering 140 14. Sacrificial Meals 142 XI. The Bloodless Offering 148 XII. The Drink-Offering 154 Xni. The Burnt-Offering 157 XIV. The Thank-Offering 162 XV. The Sin-Offering and the Trespass-Offering 166 XVI. The Offering of Jealousy 189 XVI] . The Paschal Sacrifice 190 XVIII. The Doctrine of Vicarious Sacrifice 192 XIX. The Christian Sacrifice 199 XX. The Sacrifices of the Hebrews compared with those of other Nations 202 XXI. On Human Sacrifices in general 213 J. The Occasions on which they were offered .... 214 2. The Persons selected 222 3. The gradual Abolition of Human Sacrifices .... 225 XXII. The various Forms of Idolatry adopted by the Hebrews . 232 XXIII. Human Sacrifices among the Hebrews ........ 248 XXIV. The' Views of the Pentateuch and the Hebrew Prophets on Idolatry and Human Sacrifices 257 XXV. Conclusions and general Remarks on the Theology of the Past and the Future 2G3 1. The Creation 265 2. Miracles — 3. Prayer and other Devotions 274 4. Revelation . • . 279 5. Inspiration . . . . : 283 ■ 6. Prophecy 285 Translation AND Commentary — Chapters I to VII 297 Essay on the Hebrew Priesthood 343 I. Survey of the Ordinances of the Pentateuch with respect to Priests and Levites . — II. An Estimate of the legislative Value of these Ordi- nances 362 III. Fluctuations within the Pentateuch in reference to the Laws of the Priesthood 308 IV. Deviations from the Levitical Laws found in the historical Books of the Old Testament 385 V. A historical Sketch of the Origin and Growth of the Order of Priesthood among the Hebrews .... 395 Translation and Commentary — Chapters VIII to X . . . . 407 INTRODIIdrOK I. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN EXODUS AND LEVITICUS. The ordinances concerning the public worship of the Hebrews which Avere commenced in the Book of Exodus, are continued, and in some respects completed, in Leviticus. They related, in the former Book, chiefly to the construct- ion of the Sanctuary, and to the vestments and consecration of its ministers; while they refer in the latter, to sacrifices deemed to form the principal means of religious service, and to the duties and privileges of the priests. But the third Book unfolds, moreover, the laws and institutions designed to embody and to realise Israel's mission as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."^ It culminates in the doctrine "You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy."^ Thus its scope is immeasurably extended. It points out the means by which the covenant before concluded between God and Israel may be perpetually preserved and renewed. It impresses by manifold com- mands and symbols that the covenant can only be maintained by obedience and piety on the part of Israel, and by grace and forgiveness on the part of their God. It shows that this lofty aim is attainable, first and di- rectly, by diligent service at the Sanctuary, by the absolute rejection of idolatry, and by the removal of every external impurity; but more unfailingly still, though less directly, by a life of virtue and rectitude. There- fore, the sacrificial and priestly regulations are followed by denunciations against every form of idolatry and su- perstition; by precepts upon purity in diet and in the general intercourse of life; by statutes on festivals and 1 Exod.XIX. 6. 2 Lev. XIX. 2; comp. XL 46; XX. 7, 8, 26; XXII. 32. XII INTRODUCTION. holy seasons; by rules settling the relations between God, the invisible King, and the persons or the land of the Israelites'; by commands relating to men or things sanctified by a vow; and especially by a series of laws directing the moral conduct of individuals, both in re- ference to their families and their fellow-men generally, defining the ties of consanguinity and the rights of property, and securing the protection of the poor and the helpless : and all these injunctions are properly con- cluded by a solemn blessing promised to attend their observance, and a vehement curse certain to follow their transgression. The Book, therefore, carries onward all the chief objects introduced in the preceding portion — the religious and theocratic, the political and civil, and the purely ethical. It was evidently intended as a com- plete and organic work, twice wound up as it is by a formula of conclusion.^ It was meant to serve as a spiritual code both for individuals and the chosen people as a community. The election of Israel by Divine grace was to be justified and merited by Israel's zealous devotion. The covenant mercifully offered by God was to be con- verted into a covenant yearned for and treasured by Israel. Jehovah had manifested Himself as the God of the Hebrews; the Hebrews were now to prove them- selves the people of God, by deed and thought, in life and faith. n. DIVISION OF LEVITICUS. However, the execution of the composition falls very considerably short of its conception. The arrangement discloses indeed, in general outlines, the three great divisions of Sac?i'fices^ Pimty^ and Morals: but the details are desultory and often illogical. Statutes which should form one division, are scattered throughout the Book, and laws belonging to different sections, are agglome- rated rather than combined. The Book possesses, there- fore, in many respects, a fragmentary character. It leaves to the reader the laborious task of effecting, by J The year of release and of jubilee. 2 Comp. XXVI. 46; XXVD. 34. DIVISION OF LEVITICUS. Xlll constant separation and connection of its elements, a unity of design, the absence of wliich painfully strikes him on careful examination. This ^vill be obvious from the following classified survey. I. Laws concerning Sacrifices and public Worship, Ch. I to X. A. The principal Sacrifices, ch. I to VIL a. First Code, ch. I to V. 1. Burnt-Offering, ch. L 2. The Bloodless Offering, ch. 11. 3. The Thank- Offering, ch. IIL 4. Expiatory Offering, ch. IV and V. «. Sin-offering, ch. IV. 1-V. 13. §. Trespass-offering, ch. V. 14 — 2C. b. Another Code, Ch. VI and VII. 1. On the Service of the Altar of Burnt-Offering, ch. VL 1—6. 2. On Bloodless Offerings, ch, VL 7—11. 3. On the Bloodless Offering of the High-priest on the Day of his Initiation, ch. VL 12—16. 4. On Sin-Offerings, ch. VL 17 — 23. 5. On Trespass-Offerings, ch. VIL 1 — 7. 6. The Portions of Burnt-Offerings and Bloodless Offer- ings to be left to the Priests, ch. VIL 8—10. 7. Eegulations regarding Thank-Offe rings, ch. VIL 11—21. 8. Prohibition against eating the Blood and Fat of Animals,ch. VIL22— 27. 9. The Portions of Thank-Offerings falling to the Share of the Priests, ch. VIL 28-34. 10. Conclusion of this Code, ch. VIL 35—38. B. The Consecration of the Sanctuary and its Utensils, and of Aaron and his Sons as Priests, ch. VIII to X. a. Consecration of the Sanctuary and of Aaron and his Sons, ch. VIIL b. The first public Sacrifices performed by Aaron and his Sons, ch. IX. c. Offence of Aaron's two eldest Sons against the sacrificial Precepts ; their Death ; and Commands regarding the Holiness of the Priests and their Functions, ch. X. U. Precepts respecting Purity in Diet and Person, ch. XI to XV. A. Distinction between clean and unclean Animals, and Com- mandments with respect to them, ch. XL SIV INTROMCTION. B. On the Purity of Persons, their Garments, and their Houses, and the Means of Purification, ch. XII to XY. a. Impurity of Women by Childbirth, ch. XII. 1 — 8. b. luipurity by Leprosy, ch. XIII and XIV. 1. Leprosy of Persons, ch. XIII, 1 — 46. 2. Leprosy of Garments and their Purification, ch. Xm. 47 — 59. 3. Purification of a leprous Person, ch. XIV. 1 — 32. 4. Leprosy of Houses and their Purification, ch. XIV. 33 — 53. c. Uncleanness in Consequence of sexual Issues, ch. XV. 1. Running Issue of Men, ch. XV. 1 — 15. 2. Spontaneous or accidental Emission of Semen, ch. XV. 16, 17. 3. Sexual Intercourse, ch. XV. 18. 4. Regular Menstruation of Women, ch. XV. 19 — 24. 5. Irregular or protracted Menstruation of Women, ch.^V. 25—30. in. Supplementary Laws respecting Sacrifices, ch. XVL 1 — XVH. 14. A. The Sacrifices on the Day of Atonement, ch. XVI. B. Ordinances as to the Place of Sacrifice, ch. XVII. 1 — 9. C. Repeated Prohibition of Blood, ch. XVIL 10—14. IV. Supplementary Ordinances regarding Purity, ch. XVIL 15, 16. V. Moral and civil Laws, ch. XVIII— XX. A. On the forbidden Degrees of Matrimony, and other Laws on sexual Intercourse, ch. XVIII (with the exception of ver. 21 treating of the Sacrifices of Moloch). B. Various moral Precepts, irregularly intermixed with religious, ceremonial, and sacrificial Ordinances, ch. XIX and XX; viz. a. On the Sabbath, ch. XIX. 3, 30 first half; b. On idolatrous Worship and Witchcraft, ch. XIX. 4, 26 second half, 31; XX. 6, 27; c. On Thank-Oflferings, ch. XIX. 5 — S; d. On mixing different Species of Beasts or different Seeds, ch. XIX. 19; e. On the Produce of yonng Fruit-trees, ch. XIX. 23 — 25; f. On the Eating of Blood, ch. XIX. 26 first half; g. On the Inviolability of the human Body, ch. XIX. 27, 28; h.. Holiness of the Sanctuary, ch. XIX. 30 second half; i. Against Sacrifices offered to Moloch, ch. XX. 1 — 5; I DIVISION AND ILLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT. XV k. Repetition of some Laws regarding the forbidden Degrees of Matrimony, and sexual Intercourse in general, ch. XX. 10—21; and L Repetition of the fundamental Command concerning clean and unclean Animals, ch. XX. 25. VI. Supplementary Precepts respecting the Priests, their Qualifications, Rights, and Duties, ch. XXI. 1— XXIL 16. Vn. Other supplementary Laws relating to Sacrifices, the Qualification of the Victims, their Age, and other Points, ch. XXII. 17 — 3;^. VIII. On the Sabbaths and the Festivals — Passover, Pentecost, the Day of Memorial, the Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles, ch. XXIII. IX. Supplementary Laws on the Service of the Sanctuary — the Light of the Candlestick and the Shew-bread, ch. XXIV. 1 — 9. X. An Incident and Law regarding Blasphemy, ch. XXIV. 10 — 1 6. XI. Some Laws — mostly repetitions — concerning Violence com- mitted against Persons or Property, ch. XXIV. 17 — 21. Xn. On the Year of Release and Jubilee, and the Right of Persons and Property in Connection therewith, ch. XXV (except vers. 35 — 3S which refer to Usury practised against the Poor). XIII. Renewed Injunctions against Polytheism and Idol- worship (XXVI. 1), and Repetition of a Precept concerning the Sabbaths and the Sanctuary (XXVI. 2). XIV. Blessing for the Observance, and Curse for the Neglect of the Divine Commandments, ch. XXVI. 3 — 45. XV. Some supplementary Laws, ch. XXVII; viz. a. On Persons hallowed by a Vow, vers. 1 — 8; b. On Animals or other Property consecrated or devoted to God, vers. 9 — 29; and c. On Tithes, vers. 30—33. III. ITS ILLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT. Let the reader carefully examine this digest, and he cannot fail to be struck by bounds and gaps, repetitions and interpolations almost too numerous to point out. The precept with regard to the hides of burnt-offerings stands entirely isolated.^ The laws on the portions of bloodless offerings to be left to the priests arc dis- membered.^ The injunction which forbids the eating of fat and blood,^ which should, conclude the laws of sacri- 1 VII. 8. 2 VI. 7— 11 and VII. 9, 10. 3 yil. 22—27. XYl INTRODUCTION. fice, interrupts the regulations on tliank-offerings/ and is later repeated in an unexpected context.^ The inter- diction of the worship of Moloch occurs in the midst of ordinances relating to unlawful marriages;'^ and a re- newed enactment against wizards and necromancy"^ is so abrupt in the place which it occupies, that it has given offence even to orthodox writers. The introduct- ory section on sacrifices^ is repeatedly supplemented, after commands on totally different subjects.^' The same irregularity is observed in the laws concerning the priests,^ and the service of the Sanctuary.^ The acts and means of purification ordained for lepers,^ are, by an intervening clause/^ unsymmetrically disjoined from the description of leprosy.'^ But above all, the portion designed to treat of moral and civil laws,^^ is perplexingly intermixed with a vast variety of heterogeneous precepts destroying all unity, nay every trace of continuity ;^^ it is impossible that a thoughtful legislator should have composed and promulgated such an agglomeration of laws, from wiiich he could hardly expect any practical effect. It is of no avail to attempt a systematic classi- fication; all efforts, however able and laborious, so far from successful, prove the incongruity still more stri- kingly by the forced expedients which they necessitate. Some combinations might, at first glance, recommend themselves, as for instance, the connection of the Day of Atonement'^ with Purification,^"^ because that Day was intended to cleanse the whole nation from impurity; and so also might laws on forbidden marriages^^ be brought into proximity with those on purification.^' But a closer scrutiny proves that these proposals create new difficulties wiiich more than counterbalance the supposed advantages: for the Day of Atonement was intended to remove not only all kinds of external impurity, which were, in fact, expiated by special sacrifices throughout the year, but 1 VIII. 11—21 and 28—34. lo XIII. 47—59. 2 XVII.IO— 14. 3 XVI1I.21. 11 XIII. 1—46. 12 Ch. XIX and XX. 4 XX. 27. 5 Ch. I to VII. 13 See supra sub V. B. c XVI. 1— XVII. 14; XXII. 17—33. i^ Ch. XVI. is Ch. XI to XV. 7 XXI. 1— XXII. 10. 8 XXIV. 1—9. 16 Ch. XVIII. 9 XIV. 1—32. 17 Comp. XVIII. 2^sqq, ILLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF LEVITICUS. XVIt chiefly all moral defilements^ Again, some have urged a correspondence between the Day of Atonement'^ and the Year of Release and Jnbileo,^^' \\ liich institutions they supposed to form the crowning points of the two series of laws contained in Leviticus; but this corres])ondence is more specious than real; for the first series also^' includes not only sacrificial precepts of various kinds, but also very important injunctions regarding the "im- purity" of life, as on forbidden marriages, which perhaps more than any other offence fell within the operation of the Day of Atonement. It is, therefore, bold indeed to speak of "the internal unity of the laws of Leviticus", and more hazardous still to assert "their organic arrange- ment." The mode in which other apologists attempt to prove a systematic sequence, although establishing a few plausible connections, is too artificial and strained to con- vince; in order to eff'ect even apparent relations, they are compelled to have recourse to the subtlest artifices of dia- lectic ingenuity. Nor is it permitted to palliate the con- fusion of the arrangement by observing, "The Book ex- hibits the historical progress of the legislation; conse- quently we must not expect to find the laws detailed in it in a systematic form"; for all the laws of Leviticus were, according to its own statements, promulgated in mount Sinai^^ within one month, from the first day of the first month to the first day of the second in the year after the exodus.^^ The inevitable result which forces itself upon the mind of the attentive reader, coincides with that which historical and internal evidences force upon the critic, namely, that the Book of Leviticus cannot possibly be the work of. one author and of one age; but that it is composed of various portions written, enlarged, and modified by different authors, in harmony with the ne- cessities and altered conditions of their respective times. The desultory character of the Book will appear more manifestly still by the following synopsis of the portions arranged with reference to their matter, and proving at a glance, how numerous transpositions are required to IS XVI. 21, 30, 34. 22 VII. 38; XXVI. -IH; XXVII. 34. 19 Ch. XVI. 20 XXV. 23 Compare Exodus XL. 17 and 21 Yiz. that which precedes ch. XVI. Numbers I. 1. A IVlil iNTRODUCTIOlSr. effect even a tolerable sequence, and how many omissions are desirable to avoid useless redundancy. I. Laws concerning Sacrifices. 1. Burnt-Offering, 1. 1 — 9 ; VII. 8; 1. 10- 17; VI. 1—6. 2. Bloodless Offering, 11. 1—3; VI. 7 — 11 (with tlie necessary modifications); II. 4 — IC; VII. 9, 10; VI. 12 — 16. 3. Thank-Offering, III. 1-16; VII. 11-21,28-34; XIX. 5 — 8;'XXIL 29, 30.2 4. Expiatory Offering, IV. 1 — 5, 26; VI. 17 — VII. 7. 5. General Injunctions, XVI. 1, 2; XVII. 1 — 9; XXII. 17 — 28; 31 — 33 (a general conclusion). 6. Prohibition of Fat and Blood,^ III. 17 ; VII. 22—27 ; XVII. 10-14; XIX. 26 (first half). II. Laws on the Priests and the Sanctuary, VIII to X ; XXI. 1 — XXIL 16; XIX. 30; XXVL 2 (second half);^ -XXIV. 1—4,^ 5 — 9,^ followed by Ordinances on Vows and Sacred Property, XXVn. 1 — 33.7 in. Laws on Purity. 1. Clean and unclean Animals, and unlawful Food, XI. 1-47; XVIL 15, 16;8XX. 25.9 2. Impurity by Childbirth, XII. 1—8. 3. Impurity by Leprosy, XIIL 1-46; XIV. 1—32; Xm. 47-59; XIV. 33—53. 4. Impurity of the Body, XV. 1—33. IV. Civil and Moral Laws. 1. Unlawful Marriages and Intercourse, XVIII. 1 — 20; 22—30; XIX. 20-22; XX. 10 — 21.io 1 Repetition of VII. 16 — 18. ion of the firstborn unclean animals 2 Also partial repetition of the same for their value increased by one fifth, laws. is at variance with Exod. XIII. 13 and 3 Four times repeated. The efforts XXXIV. 20, which prescribe the re- made to justify these repetitions are dcmption by a lamb, and with Num. unavailing-. ^ Repetition of XIX. 30. XVllI. 15, which fixes the price of 5 On the oil of the candlestick and redemption simply at five shekels; see the perpetual light, almost verbally p. 375. repeated from Exod. XXVII. 20, 21. s partly repetition of XI. 39, 40; 6 Comp. Exod. XXV. 30, where the Exod. XXII. 30; comp. Deut. XIV. 21. second command (on the shew-bread), 9 Comp. Exod. XXIIl. 20; XXXIV- thoug-h but briefly stated, stands more 26; Deut. XIV. 21 — threefold repeti- fitly. tion of the same law concerning- the 7 Comp. Num. XXX. 3 — 16. — Lev. kid and its mother's milk. XXVII. 26, 27, ordaining the redempt- lo Comp. Exod. XX. 13 ; XXII. 15, 16. • ILLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF LEVITICtlS. XtX 2. Various Moral Precepts, XIX. 1—3 (first half),'^ 9;XXIIL22-/2xiX. 10-18/3 29,32-37;'^ XX. 7_9,22-24,26;XXIV. 17 -21;»^XXV. 35-38. 3. On the Holiness of God, XXIV. 10- lO.^^ 4. Against Idol-Worship and Witchcraft, XIX. 4, 26 (second half), 31; XX. (i and 27;^' XXVL \.'^ 5. Against the Worship of Moloch, XVIIL 2 1 ; XX. 1 - 5. 6. Inviolability of the human Body, XIX. 27, 28. 7. On the Produce of young Fruit-trees, XIX. 23—25. 8. On mixing Beasts or Seeds, XIX. 1 !). V. On the Sabbath and Festivals, XIX. 3, 30; XXVL 2 (first half) ;»9 XXIIL 1—21,20 23-44; XVL 3—34; XXV. 9.^^ VI. On the Sabbath-Year and the Year of Jubilee, XXV. 1 — 34, 39- DO 22 VII. Blessing for the Observance, Curse for the Transgression of the Law, XXVL 3-46. It is, therefore, unwarranted to affirm that "the in- dividual laws are grouped in larger classes in which the kindred portions are placed together." This is de- cidedly not the case with respect to any of the chief divisions of the Book. Its imperfect arrangement appears in still stronger light if we consider that the fourth and lifth Books contain numerous Levitical ordinances which ought logically to have been joined to the analogous regulations set forth in the third, namely 1. Election and Census of the Levites, Num. III. 5 — 39. 2. Substitution of Levites for firstborn Israelites, III. 44 — 53. 3. Service of the Priests and Levites at the Sanctuary, ch. IV. 4. A comprehensive Ordinance on Trespass-Offerings, V. 5—10. 5. The ''Offering of Jealousy", V. 11 — 31. 11 Comp. Exod.XX. 12; XXI. 15, IT. n Repetitions of XIX. 20. 12 Almost verbally repeated from is Comp. E.xod. XX. 3— 5 ; XXII. II); XIX. 9, 10. 13 Ad ver. 12 comp. XXIII. 24,25. i9 Repetition ofXlX. 30. Exod.XX. 15. i-i Ad ver. 34 comp. 20 Yer, 18, on the viclims to Ix' Exod. XXII. 20; XXllI. 9. killed at Pentecost, at variance with 15 Ver. 21 is almost a repetition of Num. XXVIII. 27— 30. vers. 17 and 18; ad vers. 17 and 21 21 Comp. Exod. XII. 1—20, 4.'{ — I'.t ; on murder comp. Gen. IX. 5, G; Exod. XVI. 23^^^.; XX. 8-11 ; XXllI. 12, 1 1 XX. 13; XXI. 12—14: vers. 19, 20 on - 18; XXX. 10; Num. IX. 6— 14. retaliation of limb for limb, are a close 22 Vers. 39—46, a law on Helirew repetition of Exod. XXI. 2;j— 25; comp. slaves, at variance with Exod. XXI. also Exod. XXII. 21 -2(i; XXllI. 1—8. 1—1 1 ; comp. also Exod. XXllI. 10, 1 1 ; 16 Comp. Exod. XX. 7; XXll. 27. Lev. XXVII. 17—24. A 2 XX INTRODUCTION. 0. Once more an Account of the Erection, Anointing, and Consecration of the Tabernacle and its Utensils; and Sacrifices of the Chiefs of the twelve Tribes in Honour of the Dedication of the Altar, VII. 1—88. 7. On the Candlestick and its Lights, VIII. 1—4. 8. Initiation of the Levites, VIII. 5 — 22. I). On the Period of Life during which the Levites are bound to do active Service at the Sanctuary, VIII. 23 — 26. 10. On the Drink-Offering, XV. 1 — 16. 11. The "Firstfruit of the Dough", XV. 17—21. 12. The Sin- Offering of the Community and of Individuals, XV. 22 — 31. 13. Functions and relative Position of Priests and Levites, XVIIL 1—7. 14. Revenues of Priests and Levites, XVIIL8— 32.^ 15. The Ordinance of the "Red Cow" and Laws of Purification, ch. XIX. 1 6. The Sacrifices to be presented on Week-days, New-moons, and the five great Festivals, ch. XXVIII and XXIX. 17. On Levitical Towns, XXXV. 1—8. 18. Sacrifices at the central Sanctuary, Deut.XII. 11 — 18,26,27. 19. Laws of Tithes, XIV. 22 — 21) (comp. XXVL 12 — 15). 20. Laws on Firstborn Animals, XV. 19 — 23. 2 1 . On Festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles), XVI. 1 — 1 7. 22. On Faultlessness of the Victims, XVIL 1. 23. Priestly Revenues, XVin. 1—8. 24. On Vows, XXm. 22—21. 25. Directions of Priests to be obeyed in cases of Leprosy, XXIV. 8. 26. Offering of the Firstfruits, XXyi. 1 — 11. It will be seen that these portions would also demand very considerable transpositions to produce anything like systematic sequence among themselves ; while in order to insert them into their fit places in the code of Leviticus, they would require to be totally disjoined. These cir- cumstances throw light on the origin and peculiar com- position of the whole Pentateuch, which will be discussed in its due place. 1 Comp. Exod. XXII. 28, 29; XXIII. 19. / COMPONENT TARTS OF LEVITICUS. XXI IV. ITS COMPONENT PARTS. Indeed the Book of Leviticus 111:13^ be recognized, with sufficient distinctness, as a compilation of various smaller collections or treatises, mostly introduced under separate headings, and often terminated by proper con- clusions. Thus 1. The general ceremonial of the older classes of sacri- fice — holocausts, bloodless oblation, and thank-offering (ch. I to III) — formed evidently a complete section by itself, introduced by the words, "And the Lord called to Moses, and spoke to him out of the Tent of Meeting, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them", etc. So also 2. The portion treating of the fourth and latest class of sacrifice — the expiatory offerings ■ — (ch. IV and V), headed by almost exactly the same terms (IV. 1, 2), and sub- divided into sin-offering and trespass-offering, the latter beginning with the words, "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying" (V. 14), and these again distinguished into those presented for intentional and violent offences, and those offered for inadvertent sins, both being sepa- rated by the same formula, "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying" (V. 20), entirely in harmony with the history and gradual develo])ment of ex])iatory offerings. 3. A section containing general precepts with regard to sacrifices (ch. VI and VII), written from a different point of view, but also facilitating, by separate headings, the subdivision into the four classes — holocausts (VI. 1), bloodless oblations (VI. 12), expiatory sacrifices (VI. 17), and thank-offerings (VII. 28).' 4. A special prohibition of fat and blood with an initial phrase (VII. 22-27). But all the parts just re- viewed (ch. I to Vil) were no doubt intended as a complete sacrificial code, as is clearly proved by the general con- clusion, "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the bloodless offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the trespass-offering, and of the offering of consecration, and of the sacrifice of the thank-offerings, which the Lord 2 Comp., however, VI. 7—11; VII. 11— 21, XXII INTRODUCTION. commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that He commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai" (VII. 37, 38). 5. Then follow accounts of the consecration of Aaron and his sons, and of their hrst official acts (VIII and IX) with a heading (VIII. 1); 6. The death of Nadab and Abihu and some laws brought into connection with it (ch. X, comp. vers. 8, 12); and 7. Dietary laws (ch. XI) with heading (ver. 1) and conclusion (vers. 40, 47); Then the commandments relating to impurity (ch. XII to XV), namely 8. On women in childbirth (XII. 1 — 8, comp. ver. 1); 9. On leprosy, whether of persons or of garments and houses with a heading (XIII. 1) and comprehensive conclusion, "This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house, and for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot; to teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy" (XIV. 54 — 57); and 10. On running issues of various kinds similarly introduced (XV. 1) and finished (vers. 32, 33). 11. Next comes, in a separate section, the law re- specting the Day of Atonement, with heading (XVI. 1) and conclusion (ver. 34); then follow 12. Some sacrificial precepts (XVII), to which is joined the prohibition of blood (vers. 10—14), with heading (ver. 1); 13. Injunctions against illicit marriages and intercourse (XVIII), with heading and introduction (vers. 1- — 5). and with conclusion and emphatic final warning (vers. 24 — 30); but the prohibition of the worship of Moloch is inap- propriately inserted (ver. 21); 14. A group of laws, chiefly of moral import but interspersed with various other precepts (ch. XIX); it w^as evidently written independently of the preceding portions, as is proved by the manifold repetitions of anterior commands; and it has its own heading and intro- duction (vers. 1, 2), and a distinct conclusion, "Therefore shall you observe all My statutes, and all My judgments, and do them; I am the Lord" (XIX. 37); then COMPONENT PARTS OF LEVITICUS. XXHI 15. Another and similar gronp (ch. XX) with ana- logons beginning (ver. 1), bnt Nvilhont conchision (ver. 27); 16. Varions pontifical laws (XXI. 1 — XXII. 1()) with several headings (XXI. 1, 16; XXII. 1) and unmistake- able thongh vagne conclusion (XXL 24); 17. Some additional sacriticial laws (XXII. 17—33), with heading (vers. 17, 18) and full conclusion and per- oration (vers. 31 — 33); 18. Copious ordinances concerning the festivals (XXIII) with headings and introductions (vers. 1, 2, 4, 23, 26, 33), and a comprehensive conclusion, "So Moses declared to the children of Israel the feasts of the Lord" (ver. 44), and 19. Once more precepts on the service of the Sanct- uary (XXIV. 1 — 9), with heading (ver. 1). Then follow 20. An episode concerning the theocratic offence of the son of a Hebrew woman and an Egyptian man, with which some moral and civil ordinances are coupled (XXIV. 10—23), and 21. A section upon the Sabbath-year and the year of Jubilee (ch. XXV), with heading (ver. 1) and con- clusion (ver. 55). 22. After some isolated moral and religious injunct- ions (XXV. 35—38; XXVI. 1, 2), we find 23. A portion containing the blessing and the curse complete in itself (XXVI. 3-45). Here the whole collection was at first concluded as is evident from the last words, "These are the statutes, and the judgments, and the laws, which the Lord made between Him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses" (XXVI. 4(3). Nevertheless 24. Another section is appended concerning vows and devoted property (ch. XXVII) with a separate heading (ver. 1); after which another conclusion follows, though not so full ant^ comprehensive as the former one, "These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai" (XXVII. 34). We are far from contending that the Book of Le- viticus was compiled of the 24 portions, as of so many fragments, and composed at so many different times: on the contrary, some sections treating of distinct subjects, XXIV INTRODUCTION. and even some treating of analogous matters, may have been and probably were written at about the" same period, and are possibly the productions of the same author; and the frequent occurrence of the same phrases, as "1 am the Lord"' or 'i am the Lord your God",'^ possibly permits the inference of an identity of author- ship. But a careful examination of the whole context compels the conclusion that a few older portions formed the ground-work of the Book; that this collection of laws was enlarged and qualified by the addition and insertion of new sections or single precepts dating from later periods, till the Book finally assumed the chequered and heterogeneous form in which it was received into the canon. Now, the questions arise, which are those older sections that may be considered the foundation or nucleus of Leviticus? When, were they composed? when were the other portions added? and when was the Book closed and finally revised? It lies in the nature of the sub- ject that questions like these can, in detail, be answered with the greatest caution only; not even the finest cri- tical tact and intuition can guard the scholar from error; for the criteria are eminently subtle and fluctuating, and the matter is ramified with a thousand complications of Hebrew history and antiquities. For the latter reason especially, we shall here confine ourselves to a chrono- logical analysis of the first ten chapters on which the present volume contains the commentary, and in it the arguments in support of our opinions; it seems undesirable to state results without being able to refer to the proofs which the notes on the various sections can alone ad- equately unfold; and the arrangement of the whole Book and the discussion on the date of its composition will, therefore, more appropriately be reserved for the next volume. The reader will, however, find scattered in the essays on Sacrifices and the Priesthood, numerous facts and arguments which will almost enable him to decide 1 XYIIT.5, 6, 21;XIX.12,14,16, !8, 2 XVIII. 2, 4, 30; XIX. 2, 3, 4, 10, 28, 30, 32, 37; XXII. 2, 3, 8, 9 and 25, 31,34,36; XXIII. 12, 43; XXIV. 22; 16, 30— 33; XXVI. 2; comp. Num. III. XXV. 38, 55; XXVI. 1. 13,41,45. CHRONOLOGY OF CHAPTERS I TO X. XXV for himself upon these important points.^ On the first part of the Book we may propose the following conjectures with some degree of confidence. V. CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE LAWS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST TEN CHAPTERS. I. Chapters A^III to X: Consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests, and the sanctification of the Tabernacle and its vessels, in close connection with the command in Exodus (XXIX), to which, no doubt, it was originally joined as a continuous composition:^ the consecration (ch. VIII) is succeeded by a record of the sacrifices offered for the priests and the people on the first day after the conclusion of that ceremony, and meant to complete the preparations for the permanent service of Aaron and his sons; the last verses (23 and 24), the account of fire miraculously descending from heaven to burn the sacrifices on the altar, was appended, on the whole unskilfully and inappropriately, from an earlier document or tradition;^ then follows the notice of the death of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu in consequence of unlawful fumigation, their burial, and some laws oc- casioned by the event (vers. 1 — 7); then a fragment (vers. 8 — 11) containing one very special ordinance re- specting abstinence from wine and other strong drink and a very comprehensive statement of sacerdotal duties; next commands concerning the priestly portions in thank- offerings (vers. 12— 15); and lastly, a remarkable argument between Moses and Aaron in reference to the meat of the people's sin-offering which had been presented on the day after the consecration (vers. 16—20), an addition manifestly borrowed from another source older than that of the preceding chapter (comp. IX. 15), because it shows the sacrificial laws in a less advanced stage of de- velopment,^ whife Moses appears in greater independence of action, and not as a mere agent absolutely guided by a higher will.' 3 Comp. esp. pp. 35—37,395—406. 6 See notes on IX. 5—21. 4 See notes on VIII. 1 — 5. "^ See notes on X. IG — 20, the con- 5 See notes on IX. 22 — 24. eludings observations. XXVI INTRODUCTION. II. Chapter VI. 1 — 11: a short and first sketch of the sacrificial ritual, especially of the public biirnt-oifer- iiigs^ written for the guidance of the priests and probably by a priest,' comi)rising 1. Regulations on the ceremonies to be observed at the daily holocausts, and on the per- petual tire to be maintained on the brazen altar (vers. 1 — G); and 2. Directions as to the bloodless offerings (or the minchah^ vers. 7- — 11) probably with some additions in both parts made by the same Avriter who subjoined the next portions.'^ This section contains therefore nothing but what concerned the proceedings and privileges of the priests, without alluding to the duties devolving upon the offer- ing Israelite, and it refers merely to the two oldest classes of sacrifice — the holocaust and the minchah. III. Chapter YI. 12 — 16: likewise an ordinance of a specifically sacerdotal character, relating to the blood- less offering of the High-priest on the day of his con- secration, possibly of the same date as the preceding verses; it is, no doubt, of early origin; for half an omer, or the twentieth part of an ephali of flour, sufficed for a minchah, while later at least one tenth w^as demanded, and the ritual is infinitely more simple than that after- wards described (in ch. VIII).^ But considerably later is the following section, IV. Chapter VI. 17 to VII. 7. It consists of two divisions, each introduced by the words "This is the law of", namely 1. VII. 1- — 7 on the trespass-offering, and 2. VI. 17 — 23 on-the sin-offering; both are added as first injunctions on these new and later classes of sacrifice, and from the same point of view as the previous precepts concerning the holocaust 2a\^minchah (VI. 1' — 11), namely, as directions for the priests; but the section concerning the trespass-offering is older; and it illu- strates the regulations respecting this latter class by reference to the primitive holocausts."^ V. Chapter VII. 8 — 10. A subsequent compiler who found the sacrificial code completed so far (VI. 1 — VII. 7), appended a few ordinances on the burnt-offering and the minchah which appeared to him important, and he 1 Comp. VI. 2, 18. 3 See notes onV1.12— 16. * See 2 See notes on VI. 1—11. notes on VI. 17—23 and VII. 1—7. CHRONOLOGY OF CHAPTERS I TO X. XXVII did SO from the same point of view, wliicli pervades the whole code, namely, in the interest of the priests, de- termining their share in those two kinds of ottering. These additions are probably even later than chapters 1 and II, as they claim the hides of the liolocausts for the priest, and classify the priestly shares in the minckak on a more advanced principle."^ But now it was found that enactments concerning a chief class of sacrifice were entirely wanting, namely respecting the thank-offerings or slwhmmr. as these were earlier in origin than the expiatory sacrifices, they ought to have been treated of immediately after the holocaust and ininchah ; but as the latter series of laws was con- cluded, nothing was left but to append the ordinances on thank-offerings at the end, and in order to establish some kind of connection with the preceding series, they were likewise introduced with the words ; "this is the law of"; these laws form the next portion YI. Chai)ter Vll. 11 — 21: but meanwhile a consider- able period had elapsed, during which sacrifices had been habitually and numerously offered, and the sacrificial system had developed itself under the influence of an increasing priesthood; therefore the injunctions respecting the slu'lamim are much more elaborate and more detailed than those concerning the other kinds of sacrifice; the class is. separated into two subdivisions, ^'the praise- offering'' and the "vow and free-will offering"; but in spite of the external connection by "and this is the law of", the principle of the preceding commands, namely the exclusive reference to the priesthood, is not maintained; the precepts relate partly to the mode of sacrifice and the manner of the disposal of the flesh by the Israelites; the "most holy" character of the meat is enjoined with excessive severity; and everything breathes a later and rigorously Levitical character. VII. Chapter VII. 22—27: two very old laws against eating blood and fat, founded on long usage, and added at the same time as the preceding portion or somewhat later; it was evidently desired that these prohibitions 5 See Comm. in loc. XXVIII INTRODUCTION. should be expressly and emphatically enforced, though they were probably familiar to everyone. Now it might be supposed that, after so many add- itions and appendices, the first code was finally com- pleted. But a later priest discovered that the share of his order in the thank-offerings was not mentioned, and he supplied the omission by another appendix, in which he either recorded, fixed, or extended the actual usage of his time in that respect, and thus endeavoured to secure for his class one of the most important sources of its revenue; this is YIII. Chapter VII. 28-34. Now he believed that the whole system of sacrifices was indeed fully treated of, and he concluded the collection of laws with a for- mula which it is impossible to conceive more general or more comprehensive (vers. 35 — 38). Independently of the code just analysed and, on the whole, contemporaneously with it, another one was com- posed by a different hand (ch. I to III); it embraces, like the first, the oldest and principal sacrifices: but the point of view from which it is compiled is different ; it is intended as much for the guidance of the people as of the priests, and is mainly confined to private offer- ings. This collection contains indeed but few contra- dictions if compared with the preceding one, bat they are sufficient to prove the distinct origin of both. In the former, a perpetual fire on the altar is ordained (VI. 2, 5, 6), the other does not suppose such a fire to be entertained (I. 7);^ and in the former, the hides of the holocausts are assigned to the priests (VII. 8), in the other this is at least not expressly mentioned, and the whole animal appears to have been burnt (I. 6, 9). This code begins IX. Chapter I. 1 — 13, with laws on private and voluntary burnt-offerings consisting of quadrupeds ; they date, on the whole, from a comparatively early time; they are indeed less Levitical than the corresponding section in the other code (VI. 1 — 6), as the contradict- 1 See notes in loc. CH1?0N0L0GY or CHAPTEllS 1 to X. XIIX ions just pointed out prove, but the language and general character argue their later origin. They were placed at • the beginning of the Book because, in connection with the next chapters, they contain an apparently co- herent system of the principal sacrifices. Then follows, X. Chapter II. 1 — 13, a series of laws on bloodless oblations, much more elaborate and detailed, and mani- festly evincing larger experience than the analogous ordinances in VI. 12 — 16; and XL Chapter III. 1- — 16, on thank-offerings if not more minute, certainly more logical and systematic than VII. 11-21. To each of these three chapters later additions were made, it may be from the same hand, namely XII. Chapter I. 14 — 17, on the burnt-offerings of birds, that is of pigeons and turtle-doves, which were but gradually admitted for such sacrifices;^ XIII. Chapter 11. 14 — 16, of the firstfruit-offering, and the use of salt, leaven, and honey, in connection with sacrifices ; though the special ordinance with respect to the firstfruit-offering would more logically have been inserted before the general regulations with regard to all classes of the minchak (or after ver. 10); and XIV. Chapter III. 17, the prohibition of fat and blood, appended as abruptly as in the former code.^ At a considerably later period, the next portion concerning expiatory sacrifices^ was added. This com- plicated section must be subdivided on the following leading principles: 1. At first, intentional sins alone were deemed to require atonement, but later unintent- ional transgressions likewise ;''^ 2. The expiatory offer- ings had, for a long time, a civil and political no less than religious character, and were presented especially for offences connected with the right of pro- perty;^' and 3. The sheep and goat were originally the specific victims of expiatory offerings, later only and exceptionally, the young bullock was added to them, and almost exclusively for the purpose of theocratic g^rada- 2 See notes on 1. 1 — 9. * Chapters IV and V. 3 VII. 22—27. 5 See p. 169. 6 See p. 180. XXt mTRODFCTIOK. tioii.^ By applying these principles we obtain the fol- lowing arrangement. XV. Chapter V. 20 — 26: on trespass -offerings in cases of intentional and violent encroachments upon the right of property; the sacrifice is a ram, besides restitution of the property increased by one fifth of its value ; XVI. Chapter V. 14 — 19, on trespass-offerings in cases of unintentional offences against property, whether of the Sanctuary or of private persons ; the victim, the restitution, and compensation are as in the preceding instances; XVII. Chapter V. 1 — 13: in the course of time the Hebrews advanced to a new class of expiatory sacrifices, the sin-offerings, which were endowed with a purely religious character, and w^ere, as a rule, only presented for unintentional transgressions; the victim was a goat; but the separation between the trespass- and the sin-offering was as yet in its beginning; both were still approaching each other in their nature and designation, and the distinction between designed and unintentional offences was not yet strictly maintained.^ Then follow, lastly, XVIII. In chapter IV, systematic and nicely gra- duated ordinances respecting the sin-offering; unin- tentional offences alone were capable of expiation, and the victim was in certain cases a young bullock; which points argue the very late date of the section. Three of the four subdivisions of the two chapters just discussed (IV and V) are introduced with special headings; and the four were evidently arranged by the compiler according to the relative holiness of the sacrifices, which was exactly in an inverse ratio to their antiquity; the most sacred class (ch. IV) was the latest, and the most worldly (V. 20—26) the earliest in origin. When the second code (Chapters I to V) w^as thus placed before the former one (Chapters VI and VII), the comprehensive conclusion (VII. 35 — 38) could well 1 See pp. 33, 34. 2 Vers. 2 sqq. THE NAME OF THE BOOK.— ITS IMPORTANCE. XXXI be considered to refer to the entire collection or to the double scries of laws, and the whole could therefore be looked upon as the Book of Sacrifices. VI. THE NAME OF THE BOOK. As the third Book of the Pentateuch contains numer- ous ordinances which concern the High-priest and the priests, or mark out and regulate their activity, but treats much less of the "Levites" in the stricter sense, it was rather inappropriately inscribed Leuitikon by the Septuagint, and hence LevUicm by the Vulgate. The Talmud called it more aptly, though not much more exhaustively, ''The Law of the Priests" or "The Law of Sacrifices", while the Masorah designated it, without any reference to the contents, merely Vayihra (and He callcd\ from the first word of the Hebrew text. VH. ITS IMPORTANCE. The peculiar significance of Leviticus in the system of the Pentateuch is obvious. The sacrifices, constituting the centre of public worship, were the principal bond of union between the Israelites and their God; they formed a powerful agency of moral and religious training; and they helped, more effectually than any other institution, to keep alive within the nation the consciousness of its unity and its mission. But the importance of Leviticus in the economy of the New Testament is hardly less manifest: the notions of vicarious suftering and sacrificial death as a means of expiation and grace, in which the later dispensation is centred, cannot be thoroughly understood without an exact knowledge of the spirit of the Levi- tical laws; hence the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews exerted himself, by every effort of sagacity and dialectic ingenuity, to point out the analogy between the sacrificial doctrines of the Old and the New Coven- ant; for he felt how much was gained by making the precepts of Leviticus the foundation of the new creed of atonement.'* 3 Whether this justifies _thc typical has been examined in its due place, acceptation of the Hebrew sacrifices, pp. 100 — 119. XXXII INTHODUCTION. Laws are the concrete expression of a nation^s life; they reflect both its history and its political struggles; but the religious statutes reveal with singular distinctness its spiritual aspirations and higher aims; and they reveal them even if they should virtually be nothing else but proposals, and should long remain no more than ideal demands. I. R V I T I C U S. I. LAWS CONCERNING SACRIFICES AND PUBLIC WORSHIP. CHAPTERS I TO X. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. Chapters I. to VII. PRELIMINARY ESSAY. ON THE SACRIFICES OP THE HEBREWS AND OF OTHER NATIONS. I. THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICES. Wherever the rite of sacrifice existed, it was the principal and most significant means of manifesting piety. It formed the centre and kernel of religions worship. It mainly called forth altars, temples, and priests. But sacrifices were offered by nearly every nation of antiquity. Their origin must, therefore, be intimately connected with the very essence of religion. Indeed it appears that the earliest sacrifices were presented, as holocausts, from motives aiawe and fear. They were designed to appease the terrible beings that were imagined to sway nature and its elements, and arbitrarily to rule over the life and death of man. They disclosed the offerer and the deity in the relative position of slave and master. When gradually the powers of the universe were understood and partially subdued ; when the fields, however reluctantly, yielded their produce, and herds and flocks multiplied on fertile pastures : an emotion of reverential gratitude stimulated the agriculturist and the breeder of cattle to devote the firstlings and choicest fruits of their labour to those divinities who had blessed their work, and whose future favour was implored. A feeling as between father and child prompted the offerings. But when men finally triumphed in the hard struggle for material existence, and secured a life of ease and comfort; they were induced, B 2 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. by a sentiment of joy, to share with the gods to whom they owed it, the best part of their property : sacrificial repasts were held, over wliich presided a spirit akin to familiarity, though exalted by veneration. It was essentially the relation between //vVw^/ and /"Wtv^^/ which characterised this class of sacrifice. Few nations proceeded beyond the three classes just specified: they presented either fear-offerings, or tfiank-offerings, or joy-offerings. They had indeed made most important progress in their religious edu- cation, when their feelings towards the deity had from those of tlie slave been refined into those of the child and of the friend; and within this circle they moved with ample freedom. Occasionally they combined two classes of sacrifice. If they had achieved a success which they attri- buted, not to their own strength and ability, but to the aid of a god; they devoted to him a part of their gain with mingled feelings of gra- titude and submission. Thus, after military victories, they presented the most honourable part of the spoil, and not unfrequently the first captives of war. It is this frame of mind that gave existence to an important class of religious offerings — to vo7vs: a person engaged in some uncertain but momentous enterprise, or menaced by some impending danger, pledged himself, in case of good fortune and deliverance, to do homage, by a self-imposed sacrifice, to the deity that had assisted him. Yet, though vows are most valuable as a manifestation of religious sentiment, they do not advance beyond the sphere of worldliness : like the three classes of sacrifice above described, they contain an element of calculating selfishness. Two most essential steps remained to be made. It was felt in the process of time, that the worshipper must not simply pray for and accept benefits, but that he must try to deserve them ; that he places a barrier between himself and the divine favour by (juilt, which much be expiated before the altar can be approached. Thus originated sin-offerings and purificaiions. A last effort crowned and concluded the system of sacrifices: it centred in the consciousness of the frailty of human nature, of the "deceitfulness" of the human heart, of its evil desires and propensities. Now it appeared no longer suffi- cient to offer sacrifices for individual sins by which the mind felt oppressed. It was deemed necessary, incessantly to invoke the mercy of heaven to shield the heart from transgressions. Thus himilily' offerings were presented. In this disposition, the mind yearns to realise the injunction, "you shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy"; it passes even to the extreme boundary of sacrifice, wliich it might over- step with one resolute effort, to enter the purer spheres of elevation by prayer. The two last classes of sacrifice, the sin- and humility- 1. OBIGIN OF SACRmCES. 3 offerings, have a tendency entirely different from that of the three former categories. They convert the altar into a tribunal, to wliich the offerer spontaneously submits: but while, in the sin-offering, God bears to him, the transgressor, the relation oi Ju(I. 27;2Chi-. II. 4, 5; VI. 18. ly Wilson, Kig-Veda 1. pp. XXIII. iMsai. XIX. 19,21; comp. vers. XXIV. 14 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. chiefs of the family or the firstborn of the house ; ^ and that even the Midianite priest Jethro is related to have offered to Jehovah holocausts and cucharistic sacrifices, in which Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel participated, because he had learnt to revere the power of the Deliverer of Israel:^ it will be admitted that the allusions contained in the earlier portions of tlie Pentateuch with reference to primitive sacri- fices, imply nothing that needs to be contested; they refer to a state of simplicity in religious worship, which bears the stamp of probability and truth. They exhibit, indeed, one very important distinction from the usages of the rest of the ancient world. The sacrifices are invariably stated to have been presented to Jehovah, the only God of heaven and earth ;^ whereas it is indisputable that the belief in Jehovah wavered among the Hebrews for many centuries;^ that idols were made and adored even by men of pure and pious intentions;* that images and religious symbols of pagan guds were placed in the very Temple of Jeho- vah, an act of detestable pollution;^ that their inveterate propensity to idolatrous iniquities was prevalent up to the time of the Babylonian captivity,' when it was a well-founded complaint, "The people of Israel, with their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, say to the block. Thou art my father, and to the stone, Thou hast brought me forth" ;S and when they were reproached with surpassing in every crime and perversity even the ill-famed people of Sodom ;^ that the fearful rites of Moloch which had contamhiated the land throughout all previous periods of their history, ^ ^ were hardly abandoned at the termination of their national life, so that Ezekiel still was compelled to exclaim, "Thus says the Lord God, How? do you pollute yourselves after the manner of your fathers? and fornicate after their abomina- tions? For when you offer your gifts, when you make your children pass through the fire, you pollute yourselves with all your idols, even 1 See the Treatise on Priesthood be- Jer. VII. 9, 10; Zeph. 1. 5 ("Ihey swear fore chapt. VIII; Sect. V. by the Lord and swear also by their 2 Exod. XVIII. 1.2; see Comm. on idol"); Ezek. VIII. 0, 10—12;' 2 Ki. Exod. p. 237. XVII. 33, 40; 2 Chr. XXXVI. 14. 3 Comp. also Genes. XIV. 18—20. ? Ezek. II. 3; V. C, 7; XXIII. 35; 4 Hos. IX. 1, 4, 5; X. 9; Am. II. 4; Isai. LXV. 1—7. Zeph. I. 4, 5; Isai. XLVIII. 8; Jer. II. « Jer. II. 26—28; comp. IX. 13; 4—9; etc. XVI. 11; XIX. 13; XXIII. 25— 27, 30 5^^.; 5 Judg-. VIII. 27; XVIII. 14, 17—19, XXXII. 32; Ps. CVI. 3G. 24; comp. Exod. XXXII. 1—6. 9 Ezek. XVI. 47, 48. c Jer. VII. 30; XXXII. 34; Ezek. V. 'O 1 Ki. XI. 5, 7; 2 Ki. XXIII. 10; 11;XX11I.38;2 Ki. XXI. 4, 5, 7; XXIII. Jer. HI. 24; VII. 30, 31;XXX1I. 35; Ps. 4, 7, 11, 12; 2 Chr. XXXIV. 33; comp. CVI. 37, 38. m. HISTORY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THfi HEBREWS. 15 to this day'' ^ ^ But the authors of the Book of Genesis intended to delineate the patriarchs as the special favourites of God, whom He deemed worthy of His familiar communion, guided in His trutli, and shielded from the common errors of their time and people. Duly balancing- this fundamental peculiarity of the narrative, wo shall l)e bound to admit that, in its references to sacrificial acts, it judiciously abstains from introducing features not in harmony with the practice of primitive generations. But the case is totally altered when we enter on the Biblical records of subsequent periods. The Books of Exodus and Leviticus are replete with statements which defy the laws of national development, imply a bound in religious progress destructive of all regular continuity, and strikingly contrast with the impartial testimony of history. 1. All sacrifices were thenceforth to be offered at one place exclusively, first "at the door of the Tabernacle before the Lord", where the altar of burnt-offerings stood (Exod. XL. 6), and God was expected to "meet" the people; ^^ ^nd afterwards in the Temple to be erected in Jerusalem. ^^ Contravention of this command was considered a heinous crime. It was certain to bring down upon the offender the severest vengeance of God. Nay, later, when theLevitical system was developed in its full rigour, the injunction was extended even to animals destined for food : he who killed a beast for this purpose, whether within or without the camp , was guilty of a deed of iniquity ; "Blood shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall by cut off from among his people." ^^ It is, then, evident that the law in question was deemed of the utmost consequence. It was indeed regarded as one (if the most effectual safeguards against heathen abuses. ^^ It placed the sacrifices under the direction and supervision of the appointed priests. It was designed to cement the unity and mutual good-will of the people, since all met for the holiest ends. But it is equally manifest that the precept involved insuperable obstacles which rendered its strict observance impossible. It may be doubted whether it could be fully obeyed even during the wanderings in the desert, when the Tabernacle formed the centre of the Hebrew hosts. We have the distinct authority of the Book of Deuteronomy 11 Ezek. XX. 30, 31 ; comp. XVf. 20, XIX. 21 ; ur simply "l,clbrc tlic Lcrd", 21 ; XXIII. 37, 39; and in g-eneral2Ki. as Lev. III. 1, 7, 12; IX. 2, 4, 5. XVII. 7—23; XXIII. 4— 20, 24; cspeci- i3 Dcul. XII. 5—7, 11, 12. ally Sect. XXII, where the siil)j('ct is i4 Lev. XVII. 3 — 5; comj)., however, discussed in all its hearing-s. Drill. XII. ir>; see?>//)Y(aii(l Inlro.liiclioii. 12 E.xod. XXIX. 42; Lev. L 3; IV. 4; i^ Comp. Lev. XVII. 7, in coiiiiectioi. XII. 6; XV. 14, 29 ; XVI. 7 ; XVII. 2— t) ; with the preceding verses. 16 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. that such was not the case ; for after commanding that no offerings should be presented at any other place but the common Sanctuary, it continues, "You shall not do after all the things which we do here this day, every man whatever is right in his own eyes." ' But the ordinance was absolutely impracticable after the conquest of Canaan, when the people were scattered over the length and breadth of the country, both in the east and west of the Jordan. .Was it possible to carry out even the comparatively limited command that bid every male Israelite to appear, with his offerings, three times annually at the national Temple?^ Could one town accommodate and support such vast numbers of pilgrims? For though the males only are mentioned as the sacrificers and the offerers of festive gifts, the whole nation was supposed to congregate at that hollowed spot, "And thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thyGud, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite who is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the Lord thy Cod has chosen to let His name dwell there." ^ This explicit statement is made with regard to Pentecost and the Feast of Taberna- cles; it naturally applies to Passover also; for this was emphatically a domestic festival; the peculiar commands regarding the paschal lamb had the one object of symbolically impressing the unity of the families and of the entire people ; ^ it was to be sacrificed in no other place but at the national altar ;^ therefore not the males alone, but entire families were obliged to attend: this is so clearly involved in the spirit of the law that it might have appeared superfluous expressly to state it. It is not easy to understand how those who lived in distant parts of the country could perform the journey from Jerusalem home, and thence again to the capital, within the short interval of the six weeks inter- vening between the conclusion of Passover and the Feast of Pentecost. It is incredible that they should have left their homes just within the period of the harvest and at the most pressing season of agricultural labours and duties. Could the commonwealth exist if all the citizens, abandoning their avocations and leaving their abodes, gave themselves up to periodical festivities, twice every year protracted during seven days?^ But the difficulty increases if we consider that sacrifices were 1 Deul. Xn. 8; see infra. * Exod. XII. 3—10, 4G ; Deut. XVI. 2 Exod. XXIIl. 17; Deut. XVI. 16,17. 4—7; see Comm. on Exod. pp. 134, 3 Deul. XVI. 11; comp. vers. 14, 15; 135, 137, and the notes on the special and 1 Sam. 1.21 ("AndthemanElkanah ordinances of Passover. and all his house went up to offer to the & Deut. XVI. 5—7. Lord the yearly sacrifice and his vow "). c Deut. XVI. 8, 15. III. HISTORY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 17 ordered for many special occasions in the life of individuals. Every woman who had given birth to a child, whether male or female;^ whoever was healed of leprous diseases ;8 whoever had lived in a house infested by leprous impurities;^ whoever had suffered from certain "running issues out of his flesh" ;^o ^as ordered to offer particular sacrifices regulated by the Law, in the Tabernacle or Temple. Can it be seriously entertained that in all these cases the injunction was literally complied with? Who can imagine the inconvenience and trouble that militated against it in the first named emergencies alone? Again, if a man felt an internal impulse to do homage to God as the Ruler of his destinies and the Judge of his deeds, he had to travel to Jerusalem to offer a holocaust. ^ ^ If he wished to evince his gratitude for Divine blessings and benefits, he could not perform his devotion by a eucharistic sacrifice at home, but was obliged to delay it till he was able to undertake the journey, whether near or distant. * ^ If, oppressed by sin in its thousandfold forms, he was anxious to make atonement before God and to restore his peace of mind, he was forbidden, unless happening to live in the capital, to satisfy at once his spiritual craving. *3 Hebrew tradition maintains that persons who lived in the provinces, offered all private sacrifices on the first great festival following the vow or obliga- tion ; but more than four months elapsed between Pentecost and Tabernacles, and nearly six months between the conclusion of Taber- nacles and Passover: therefore, granted even that this arrangement is in accordance with the spirit of the law (as in many instances it certainly is not), must not the sacrifices have lost much of their beneficent influence, when after such intervals the pious frame of mind which at first prompted the sacred acts, was weakened or changed? Would not, therefore, the ordinances in question have checked, rather than pro- moted, the growth of religious life? Were they not calculated almost to compel the people to the erection of altars in greater proximity to their abodes, or to make them join the worship of the heathens by whom they were surrounded? The compilers of the Levitical laws cannot have been blind to this danger. If they yet insisted on their statutes with unmitigated severity, they evidently considered the effects of a scattered worship, beyond the controlling power of the priests, as even more fatal. They preferred the possibility of a less active sacrificial service to the certainty of idolatrous degeneracy. They would rather lessen the ardour, than imperil the purity of public devotion. ^ Lev. XII. 1—8. lo XV. 1—15, 25—30. 8 XIV. 1—32. 11 Lev. I. 9 XIV. 33—57. 12 Lev. UI. i3 Lev. IV. V. 18 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. But to arrive at this view, and to act accordingly, they required the guidance of long and varied experience. They saw that the Hebrews, despising the reproof and admonition of occasional teachers, were con- stantly leaning towards every pagan rite. They found this propensity prevailing not only during the time of the conquest and during the period of the Judges, but even after the completion of Solomon's Temple. They perceived with sorrow, that scarcely any of the lofty expectations that had been attached to that national centre, were realised. The religious and moral elevation of the people, as a whole, had not advanced. The political animosities of the tribes did not abate. On the contrary, almost immediately afterwards, an event happened — the secession of the Ten Tribes, with their adoption of the Apis-worship — which perpetuated both the political and religious rupture of the nation. The Levitical reformers were of opinion that too great laxity had up to their time been tolerated in religious matters. They were no doubt aware that the unsettled condition of the preceding epochs had not permitted severer measures. But they believed that the influence of the priests supported by the power of theocratic kings, allowed, in their age, a more peremptory course. They clung to the opinion that the idea of a national Sanctuary was radically sound and even imperative; and they indulged in the hope, that by a rigorous injunction of its exclusive sanctity, they might at last secure those religious and political benefits which had, at the outset, been anticipated. Hence the Deuteronomist repeatedly and distinctly enforced the command, "Take heed that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest ;" ^ "thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn ... or the first- lings of thy herds or of thy flocks" etc. ;^ and he extended the injunction to all vows and free-will gifts, and to the celebration of the great festi- vals. ^ But he significantly added, "You shall not do after all the things which we do here this day, every man whatever is right in his own eyes." '* To what period in the history of the Israelites does this remark refer? If we consider the natural context of the narrative, it would relate to the time of the Hebrew wanderings in the desert;^ for the chief contents of the Book of Deuteronomy profess to have been pro- nounced by Moses, in the east of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, before the entrance of the people into Canaan.^ But that is impossible. How could the author suppose that sacrifices were offered at all places 1 Deut. XII. 13. 2 Ibid. ver. 17. 4 Dcut. XII. 8. 3 Comp. Deut. XII. U, 14, 26, 27; » Vers. 1, 9, 10. XIV. 22—27; XV. 19, 20; XVI. 2, c Deut. I. 1, 5; XXXI. 1 sqq.; see 5—7, 11, 15, 16; XXVI. 2; see also infra p. 38. xvn. 8. m. HISTORY 01^ SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 19 promiscuously, while Moses, the ostensible proclaimer of the Levitical laws, the zealous and inflexible champion of the new faith, watched and directed the people, and while the Tabernacle furmed the very heart and life of the Hebrew journeys and encampments? Therefore, although not denying to that statement a certain historical value with regard to the period prior to the conquest of Palestine,"^ we must regard it to point chiefly to the time of the Deuteronomist himself, that is, to a very late phase in the history of the Hebrew commonwealth. It almost seems to imply that the idea of one common Temple for the whole nation was, at his time, a recent and unpopular proposal which it was deemed necessary to enforce with firmness. It is an incidental admission, on his part, that priestly authority had, not even in the long interval between the age of Moses and his own, succeeded in establishing that unity of Hebrew worship which he considered the strongest support of a pure religion of Jehovah, Therefore, the final author of Leviticus, tenaciously pursuing the same idea and discarding the leniency of the Deuteronomist, interdicted sacrifices at all other places except the com- mon Sanctuary under the awful penalty of excision ; ^ and living in an era of a complete hierarchical organisation, he could venture, from that point of view, to frame his sacrificial laws with uncompromising stringency. ^ The history of sacrificial offerings among the Hebrews, from the time of Moses to the destruction of the first Temple, may, therefore, be sketched as follows. Whether the Hebrews performed any sacrifices in Egypt, and if so, whether they observed the traditional rites of their race, or adopted the deviating practices of the Egyptians, we have no means of ascertaining. For the Hebrew records pass over the long period of four hundred years with a few rapid outlines, while the statements of heathen writers are fanciful, contradictory, and mostly fabulous. ^° However, according to national traditions, the Hebrews were, in Egypt, addicted to idolatry. ^ * If they offered sacrifices at all, they probably, in the progress of time, imitated more and more those of the people among whom they lived. Indeed the author of the Book of Exodus considered others as dangerous and unfeasible. ^^ Hence the only sacrifice attributed in the Pentateuch to the Israelites in Egypt, that of the paschal lamb, is intrinsically improbable. Not only would it pre-suppose, on the part of the Hebrews, a degree of religious culture not warranted by their 7 See supra ^AQ. 8 Lev.XVII. 16. other side of the stream, and in Egypt"; 9 Comp. p. 16 and m/)-a p. 35. Ezek.XX.7,8; XXlll.3,8; comp. Exod. if^ SeeComm. on Exod. pp. XVI. sqq. XXXII. 4 ; Lev. XVII. 7; Deut. XII. 8. n Josh. XXIV. 14 ("Put away the 12 Exod. VIII. 21— 24; comp. V. 1—3; g-ods which your fathers served on the VIII. 4. C 'i 20 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. abject condition ; but it could not possibly have been carried out in one night and before the eyes of the Egyptians. The author of the Book of Exodus introduced it as the prototype of the paschal sacrifice common in his days, which he desired to invest with sanctity and import- ance, and he adroitly blended it with the main thread of his narrative. ^ It is possible that, during their migrations in the desert, the Hebrews were more accustomed to the rites of sacrifice.- The zeal of Moses and his brother Aaron contributed to enforce the observance of religious ceremonials. The construction of a portable Tent, in which sacrifices were performed, as a part of the regular service, may have exercised an influence in the same direction. But it would be hazardous to conclude from these circumstances too much. The accounts of the Pentateuch prior to the occupation of Canaan, are derived from vague traditions: they require extraneous confirmation to be received as historically reliable. But this confirmation is now^here supplied; on the contrary, everything points strongly to opposite inferences. The Pentateuch sets down the duration of the wanderings at forty years, but it barely relates the events of two. The hosts of the Israelites which, according to the Bible, amounted to upwards of two millions of souls, could not be supported, for any length of time, in a small penin- sula, mostly composed of barren tracts, and ordinarily affording scanty subsistence to no more than a limited fraction of that number: the ingenuity incessantly lavished in attempts to prove such a possibility, has yet been unable to produce convincing arguments. How, then, could the multitude of beasts required by the ordinances of the Pentateuch, have been obtained and spared for the manifold classes of sacrifice? Would not the regular and daily offerings alone have absorbed more cattle than the pasturage of the district of Sinai was able to feed? At the consecration of the Tabernacle, the chiefs of the tribes are said to have offered, besides costly vessels of silver and gold, 252 animals. ^ The puhlic burnt-offerings amounted to no less than 1245 victims annually." The paschal festival as described to have been celebrated in the second year after the exodus, would, on a very moderate computation, have demanded between 50,000 and 60,000 lambs. ^ How could animals be procured for the various other offerings above enumerated? Indeed the prophet Amos, ^ generally measured and moderate in his expressions, lets God distinctly say, "Have you offered to Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, o house of Israel? But you have borne 1 See Sect. XVll. 4 See Sect. XTII. 2Comp.Exod.XVin.l2; XXIV. 5; etc. ^ Num. IX. 1—14. 3 Num. VII. 12—88. 6 v. 25, 26. III. HISTORY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 21 the tabernacle of your king (idol)' and the statues of your images,^ the star of your god which you made to yourselves." He thus corro- borates by a clear and conipreliensive testimony what spontaneously offers itself on a simple examination of the facts, namely, that in the desert, the Hebrews so far from offering the sacrifices later known as Mosaic, abandoned themselves to every form of Sabaean idolatry.^ From the conquest of Canaan to the building of the Temple by Solomon, all sacred functions are supposed to have been performed at the Tabernacle, whether this was the magnificent and complex structure described in the Book of Exodus, or simply a portable shrine sufficient for the requirements of wandering tribes. ^^ Now, the Book of Joshua relates not only that the Tabernacle, which contained the Ark with the Cherubim and the two tablets of the Law, ^ ^ and in which a sacred light burnt from evening to morning,^- was by that leader brought to Shiloh and kept there; ^^ but that it was co^sidered the only legitimate sanctuary for the performance of sacrifices : the erection of an altar at any other place was deemed revolt against Jehovah and hostile treachery against His people; the mere suspicion roused against the east-jordanic tribes, almost plunged the nation into a civil war.^* But these statements of the Book of Joshua must be subjected to very essential modifications. It is true, that at Shiloh stood a time-honoured Tent or Tabernacle of the Hebrews. ^^ It was, for protracted periods, probably during the whole time of the Judges up to Samuel, the chief centre of public worship. ^^ There, at regularly recurring seasons of the year, religious festivals were celebrated; thither the Hebrews repaired with their families, but generally not more than once a year, to perform sacrifices and vows; and there the people or their delegates assembled for national deliberations.^' But on the other hand, it is indisputable that, during the whole of this epoch, not only were public convocations held in many towns except Shiloh; but sacrifices were frequently performed at other places wiiere the Tent did not then stand, whether these localities were believed to have been hallowed by ^ Perhaps Moloch, so Acts VII. 43. i3 Josh. XVIII. 1 ; XIX. 51 ; XXII. 9. 8 Understood to mean the imagoes of i* Josh. XXII. 16, 19, 22, 23, 2(V— 20. Saturn, to whom offerings were pre- is Ps.LXXVIlI.GO; com'p.Josh.XVIlI. sented by the old Arabians on the 1; XIX. 51; Judg-. XVIII. 31; 1 Sam. seventh day, and who was concihatcd I. 7, 9, 21 ; II. 22 ; III. 3; 2 Sam. VII. 0. by human sacrifices also. le Judg". XVIII. 31 ; 1 Sam. III. 3; XIV. 9 Comp. also Isai. XLIII. 23, 21. On 3; especially Jer. VII. 12. Ezck. XX. 25, 20 sec Sect. XXI. i^ Judg. XXI. 12, 19; 1 Sam. I. 3,21 ; 10 SeeExod. XXXIII. 7. 11. 19; comp. XX. G; see Comm. on 11 1 Sam. IV. 3, 4; 1 Ki. VIII. I). Genes, p. 506, in the explanation oflhe 12 1 Sam. III. 3. last adrcss of Jacob. 22 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. the presence of the patriarchs, or had long been sacred spots among the Canaanites, or simply happened to offer themselves opportunely for the occasions. For we are informed that the people met also in Shechem/ where even a "Sanctuary of the Lord" is mentioned, cer- tainly distinct frdui the Tiibernacle which was then in Shiloh.- They iissembled at Mizpah in Gilead, ' where Jephthah addressed his ad- herents "before the Lord", and at Mizpah in Benjamin,^ where the whole people came together "to theLord;"^^atGilgaP andatHebron.^ They habitually went to Bethel, Gilgal, and Beer-sheba to obtain oracles or to offer sacrifices. ^ In some of the towns there were no doubt ancient temples or houses of worship, as is certain with respect to Bethel, Hebron, and Mizpah in Benjamin.^ The Israelites are expressly men- tioned to have there met "before the Lord." Again it is recorded that the people 5flr<:;7y?^^^/ at Bochim ^'^ and Betliel. * ^ Individual households offered, in their homes, regularly private sacrifices, as the family of Jesse in Beth- lehem ^^ or that of Ahithophel at Giloh in Judah ; * ^ though the assistance of Levites seems from comparatively early periods to have been deemed desirable. ^^ Gideon the Manassite presented an offering at Ophrah;'^ Manoah theDanite atZorah; ^^ Samuel, whether anEphraimite orLevite, did the like at Mizpah, Ramah, Gilgal, and Bethlehem ; * "^ Saul at Gilgal * ^ and during his pursuit of the Philistines;^^ David in Jerusalem and on the threshing-floor of Araunah; 20 Absalom, with David's sanction, in Hebron ;^^ Adoniah, the son of David, near En-rogel;^^ Solomon and the people, before the completion of the Temple, "in high places." ^^ Elisha did not remonstrate at Naaman's avowed intention of sacrificing to Jehovah in his Syi'ian home;^* and later prophets, as Isaiah, Ze- phaniah, and even Malachi hopefully predicted the time when sacrifices 1 Josh. XXIV. 1, 26. 1* Judg. XVII. 4—13. 2 XVni. 1 ; XXII. 9. 15 Judg-. VI. 1 1—20, 26 sqq. 3 Judg. XI. 11. 4 XX. 1. 16 xm. 16, 19, 20. ^ Comp.XXI. 1, 5, 8; 1 Sam. VTI. 5, n 1 Sam. VII. 9, 10, 17; IX. 12, 13; 6; X. 17; 2 Ki. XXV. 23, 25; 1 iMacc. X. 8; XI. 15; XVI. 2, 5. III. 46. 18 1 Sam. XIII. 9 sqq. 6 1 Sam XI. 15; XIII. 8; XV. 21. i^ XIV. 32—35; although at this 7 2 Sam. V. 3. time the Ark of the Covenant was with 8 Am. IV. 4; V. 5; VIII. 14; comp. him in the camp; see ver. 18. Gen. XXI. 33; XXVI. 25; XLVI. 1. 20 2 Sam. VI. 17 (comp. ver. 13); 9 Comp. Judg-. XX. 18; 2 Sam. XV. XXIV. 25; comp. XV. 32. 7—9; 1 Mace. III. 46. 21 2 Sam. XV. 7—9. 10 Judg. III. 5. 11 XXI. 4. 22 1 Ki. I. 9. 12 1 Sam. XX. 6. 23 1 Ki. III. 2, 3. See Comment, on 13 2 Sam. XV. 12; comp. Job 1. 5 ; Gen. pp. 506—508. XLU. 8. 24 2 Ki. V. 17, 19. III. HISTORY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 23 would be performed at all places. ^^ Moreover, we find, after the age of Eli, the principal Tabernacle, with a regular service, at Nob, in the territory of Benjamin ;26 and after the bloodshed there committed by the direction of Saul,'' we meet it again, in David's and Solomon's reign, at Gibeon, where it was erected on "the great height."^® But during these periods, sacrifices were freely performed at other places also, without any derogation from the piety of the offerer or the acceptableness of his gift. By command of "the angel of the Lord", David himself built, on the threshing-floor of Araunah orArnon theJebuzite, an altar where he "offered burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, and invoked the Lord, and He answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt-oflfering."2 9 But even if sacrifices had then been exclusively performed at Nob and Gibeon, they would not have possessed the sanctity with Avhich they were invested by the laws of the Pentateuch: for during the whole of this period, comprising the time of Samuel's leader- ship, of Saul's and David's, and partly of Solomon's reign, the Tabern- acle was deprived of its most essential part, the Ark of the Covenant, containing not only the tablets of the Law, or the "testimony" of a supernatural revelation, but also the mysterious figures of the Cherubim, tlie emblems of God's watchful presence, and the holy mercy-seat, the pledge of His grace and forgiveness: indeed, without the Ark, the Tabernacle, like a body without a soul, lost its significance as the chosen abode of Jehovah; it was virtually not more hallowed than any ordinary place of worship. ^^ Now, the'"Ark was, in the time of Eli, taken by the Philistines, ^^ and brought toAshdod, where they placed it in the temple of Dagon.^^ geven months later, ^^ they removed it to the territory of the Israelites, to the boundaries ofBeth-shemesh.^* Shortly afterwards, it was by the inhabitants of this town sent toKirjath-jearim, ^ where it was received into the house of Abinadab, and guarded by his son Eleazar.3 5 There it remained "a long time", considerably more than "twenty years"; ^e and from thence Saul took it occasionally to accompany him on his war-expeditions, to serve him as a Divine oracle, and to enhance the sanctity of his altars and his sacrifices." Then David, surrounded by a large concourse of people, fetched it from the 25 See supra, p. 13. 30 Comp. 1 Sam. IV. 3—22; V. 6, 7; 20 1 Sam. XXI. 1—10; XXII. 10. VI. 20; etc. See Comm. on Exod. pp. 27 XXII. 16—19. 368, 378. 28 1 Ki. III. 4; 1 Chion.XVI. 39; XXI. 3i 1 Sam. IV. U. 29; comp. Comm. on Exod. pp. 461, 32 v. 1, 2. 33 VI. 1. 462. 34 VI. 12—20. 35 VII. 1. 29 1 Chr. XXI. 18, 26; 2 Sam. XXIV. 3G VII. 2. 37 i Sam. XIV 18, 18,25. 34, 35; comp. XV. 34. 24 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. house of Abinadab, to remove it to Jerusalem; but terrified by a fearful accident, he left it, on the way, in the house of Obed-Edom, where it was preserved for three months ; ' then, however, David carrying out his resolve, transported it to Jerusalem, ^ where it thenceforward remained.'' And when in the eleventh year of Solomon's reign, after the completion of the Temple, the Tabernacle with its vessels was brought fr(nn Gibeon to Jerusalem, the Ark was deposited, in its duo place, in tlie Holy of Holies of the new Sanctuary.^ Therefore, from the time of Eli, the Tabernacle was incomplete, and could not, according to the injunctions of the Pentateuch, be considered a true "Tent of Meeting." It cannot, therefore, be surprising to find, during this period, holy acts performed and sacrifices offered, in places neither sanctified by the presence of the Ark nor of the Tabernacle, as the instances above referred to abundantly prove. ^ It is true, that the Books of Chronicles furnish different accounts in nearly all the points just discussed ; and as they are frequently adduced in support of the current views, it is advisable briefly to characterise their nature and tendency. The alterations are the more striking by their systematic consistency; they breathe throughout aLevitical and theocratic spirit; and to this spirit facts and events are unscrupulously rendered subor- dinate. Thus the Chronist introduces Levites when the Ark was brought to Zion by David, ^ on which occasion he makes them sing a hymn of praise manifestly borrowed from various Psalms of the period of the exile.' He represents Solomon acquainted with the "Mosaic" Tabern- acle,^ the regulations of the Book of Numbers with respect to its ^ 2 Sam. VI. 2 — ^11. not be discovered before the appointed 2 Vers. 12—17; comp. 1 Chr.XV. 28. time of Israel's restoration (2 Mace. II. 3 2 Sam. XV. 24, 25, 29. 4—8) : therefore, the Holy of Holies of 4 1 Ki. VIII. 1 — 6. We may thus the later Temples was empty or, as briefly complete the history of the Ark. Jewish authorities state, had instead of In the time of the divided empire, it the Ark an altar-stone raised three digits was taken away, probably by some above the ground, and used, on the idolatrous monarch, though it is un- Day of Atonement, by the High-priest, known by whom, and on what occa- to put the censer upon it. sion; it was ultimately restored to its 5 Comp. 1 Sam. VII. .5, 6, 0, 10, 17; place by the pious king Josiah (2Chr. IX. 12, 13; X. 17; XI. 15; XIII. 9 sqq.; XXXV. 3), and probably destroyed or XX. 6; 2 Sam. XXIV. 25; 1 Ki. I. 9; lost at the demoUtion of the Temple III. 2, 3. by Nebuchadnezzar; but according to 6 ] Chr. XV. 26 ; comp. 2 Sam. an old tradition, Jeremiah, at the com- VI. 13. mand of God, took it, together with 7 i Chr.XXVI. 8— 36; comp. Ps.CV. the Tabernacle, to Mount Pisgah, and 1—15; XCVI. 1—13; CVI. 1, 47, 48. concealed Jit in a cavern, which he 8 2 Chr. 1.2— 6 (whereevenBezaleel closed and fastened, and which will is mentioned); comp. 1 Ki. III. 2—4. III. HISTORY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 25 transport,^ and the sacrificial ritual of the Pentateuch/ ° familiar also to Abijah, the son of Rehoboam. ^ ' He describes the Book of tlie Law "found" in Josiah's time distinctly as the work of Moses. '- He reports the slaughter of an enormous number of sacrifices, contrary to all probability,'^ to which may be added his statement that king Jeho- shaphat levied in Judea alone an array of 1,160,000 men,** which was probably more than the entire population of the province : indeed ho does not seem always to have realised to his mind the figures he men- tions; for he contends thatDavid had laid aside for the building of the Temple "100,000 talents of gold, and 1000,000 talents of silver", be- sides brass and iron "beyond weight"; ' ■' and again that his body guard consisted of 288,000 men, while in the older account it is stated at 600 men. '^ He amply adorns his narrative with miracles,*' and with additions, alterations, and expansions in the Levitical sense to such a degree that the very spirit of his sources is perverted, which, in the main, were probably an enlarged and augmented edition of the canonical Books of Samuel and Kings. * ^ He refers the institutions mentioned in the middle Boots of the Pentateuch, or in Ezekiel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, to the earlier times, especially those of David and Solomon. He describes the service of the Tabernacle, with store-houses, treasuries, and an organised system of officials, in a manner evidently betraying the combined features of various later epochs. ^^ He connects genealogically celebrated men of subsequent times, as Samuel, Heman, and Asaph, with the patriarchs, especially Levi;^^ in fact, he considers the whole caste of the Levites as holy, and continually represents them as exercising decisive influence on the course of history. As a rule, he is anxious to vindicate the 9 1 Chr. XXIII. 26; comp. Num. III. cessory huilding-s and utensils; comp. IV. VII.; but see also 2 Chr. XXXV. 3. Exod. XXV. 9) ; 2 Chr. VII. 1—3; 10 2 Chr. II. 3; comp. 1 Ki.V. 15 sqq. XXVI. 16—21. 11 2 Chr. Xlll. 11 ; comp. 1 Ki. XV. i5 See 1 Chr. XV. 12, 13 (comp. 2 Sam. 1— S. VI. 6,7) ; 1 Chr. XXI. 20, 30; 2 Chr. 1.3— 5 12 2 Chr. XXXiV. 14; comp. 2 Ki. (comp. I Ki. III. 4); 1 Chr. XXII. 2—5 XXII. 8. (comp. 1 Ki. V. 20, 23) ; XXII. 8 (comp. 13 2 Chr. XV. II; XXIX. 32,33; etc.; 1 Ki.V. 17); XXIX. 17, 18; 2 Chr. HI. 4 see p. 5. (comp. 1 Ki. VI. 3) ; VIII. 1 1 (comp. 1 Ki. 14 2 Chr. XVII. 14—18. VII. 8); IX. 14 (comp. 1 Ki. X. 5; 2 Ki. 15 1 Chr.XXII. 14; comp. also XXIV. XVI. 1«); XV. 10—15 (comp. 1 Ki.XV. 4—7. 12, 13); XXIV. 13, 14 (comp. 2Ki. XII. 16 2 Sam. XV. 18; comp. 2 Chr. XIII. 13, 14); XXIX. 7 sqq. (comp. 2 Ki. XVI. 3, 7; XIV. 8,0; XXV. 5; XXVI. 13; etc. 10 sqq.); XXXI. 3—11; XXXIII. 4,5, n 1 Chr. XXI. 26, 28; XXVIlI.l— 10 11—13 (comp. 2 Ki. XXI. 4, 5); XXXVI. (where it is related thatDavid received 6, 7 (comp. 2 Ki. XXIV. 1, 2). "in writing by the hand of God" the i^ 1 Chr. IX. 1—34. model of the Temple with aU its ac- 2° 1 Chr. VI. 1—15, 18—32. 26 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. kings of Judah, in opposition to the statements of earlier historians. » But he fictitiously attributes every variety of idolatry to king Joram,-* evidently because his wife was the daughter of Ahab, king of Israel.-^ For untlieocratic kings, as Joash and Ahaz, he invents punishment and misfortune.^ On the other hand, he omits injuring traits in the history of his favourites. He is silent about David's unlawful use of the ephod,^ his concubines,^ and his crimes against Bathsheba and Uriah ;^ he sup- presses all mention of his cruelty against the Ammonites,^ and of his infamous surrender of five of Saul's descendants to the Gibeonites to be "hung up before the Lord" ]^ he passes over the fearful and unnatural confusion in David's family; ^^ and makes no allusion to the foreign wives and idolatry of Solomon. The result of all this may be thus summed up. The Books of Chronicles are the work of one author; for they disclose throughout the same systematic re-arrangement of history. They were written at a time when the eloquence of the prophets had been succeeded by the direction of the priests. The author, aLevite, anxious to glorify his tribe and to secure its material prosperity, may, in modifying the earlier records, have undertaken a task congenial and acceptable to his contemporaries, who had themselves undergone a signal change ; yet his work is a grave offence against the spirit of truth and honesty. He shows neither the ability nor the desire for writing an impartial and faithful history. Recognising no higher, scar- cely knowing another, interest than that of Levitical priesthood, he is be- trayed into the most obvious and invidious prejudices against all other classes and intellectual pursuits. He, therefore, deserves no authority whatever as a source of history, at least on points connected with public worship; and disavowing his statements, we resume our sketch. It may naturally be expected that the building of Solomon's Temple materially augmented the splendour of the sacrificial service. Large numbers of worshippers were no doubt attracted by the fame of the king's wealth, power, and wisdom. The magnificence of the sacred edifice, exaggerated by report, contributed to allure visitors not always prompted by the purest motives of devotion, and often utterly J Comp. 2Chr. XII. 1 and I Ki. XIV. XII. 18; 2 Chr. XXVIII. 20—24, comp. 22—24; 2 Chr. XIII. 2 and 1 Ki. XV. 2 Ki. XVI. 8 sqq. 2—5; 2 Chr. XIV. 2, 4; XVII. 6 and » Sec Sect. XXII. init. 1 Ki. XV. 14; XXII. 44; 2 Chr. XXIV. 6 1 Chr. XIV. 3; comp. on the olher 2 sqq. and 2 Ki. XII. 3 sqq. ; 2 Chr. XXV. hand, 2 Sam. V. 13. 2 and 2 Ki. XIV. 3, 4; etc. ^ 2 Sam. XI. 2— XII. 26. 2 2 Chr. XXI. 11. 8 2 Sam. XII. 31. 3 2 Ki. VIII. 18. 9 2 Sam. XXI. 1—9. 4 2 Chr. XXIV. 23—25, comp. 2 Ki. lO 2 Sam. XIII— XX. 111. HISTOKY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 27 estranged from a religious life. ^* But the Temple was by no means the only and exclusive place of worship. Solomon himself set the example of defying all hierarchical institutions. He not only himself, thougli no Levite, offered three times every year burnt-offerings and thank- offerings, and incense, upon the holy altars; '^ but he built "a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the hill that is before Jerusalem, and forMolech, the abomination of the children ofAmmon": he adopted, in fact, the religious rites of all his foreign wives. ^^ It may be, that the exclusion of non-Levites from priestly functions in the Temple, could gradually be enforced, as the power of the Levites be- came, in the course of time, more commanding, and their spirit more rigorous.^* But it was certainly impossible to insist upon the absolute unity of worship, and to compel the Hebrews to sacrifice in Jerusalem alone. From Solomon's immediate successors to the very termination both of the empire of Ephraim and of Judah, we find kings and people, and often prophets and priests, inveterately addicted to all pagan rites, whicli they performed at whatever place they chose, as will be proved by the unreserved admissions of the Hebrew writers themselves.'^ Additions and modifications in the service of the Temple were unscru- pulously introduced not by priests alone but by worldly rulers, evidently unfettered by the existence of binding laws. Solomon occasionally offered the sacrifices, not on the brazen altar, but in the Court of the Temple generally. '^ When king Ahaz (B. C. 743 — 728), zealously intent upon the improvement of religious institutions, had seen, at Damascus, a new altar, he sent an exact model of it to the priest Uriah, who without hesitation reproduced the heathen fabric, placed it in the Court of the Temple, for which purpose he removed the old brazen altar to another position: the king himself sacrificed on the new structure, ordered Uriah to use it thenceforth for all offerings and libations, and reserved to himself the decision with regard to the old altar: a Mosaic ordinance on the subject seems to have been entirely unknown.'^ Nay, the heights, long used for sacrifices throughout the land, were left untouched even by some of those pious kings who sincerely desired to establish a pure worship in harmony with the views of the best and most enlightened teachers, by the kings Joash, Asa, andJehoshaphat, Ama- ziah, Azariah, andJotham. '^ This significant fact irresistibly suggests »i Comp. Isai. I. 11—13; XXIX. 13; i6 1 Ki. Vlll. 64. etc.; see Sect. IV. i7 2 Ki. XVI. 10—16: the Chronist 12 1 Ki. IX. 25; see the Treatise on takes care not to mention the new altar Priesthood, ch. V. i3 1 Ki. XI. 7, 8. (2 Chr. XXVllI. 20—24). 14 Comp. 2 Chr. XXVI. 16—21. . »^ 1 Ki. XV. 14; XXII. 44; 2 Ki. Xll. 15 See Sect. XXII; comp. p. 14. 4; XIV. 4; XV. 4, 35; comp. 1 Ki. III. 28 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. the conclusion, that, in the age of those kings, either the prohibition of worship on lieights formed no part of the Law, or the Law was so im- perfectly diffused that its ordinances were little known even to theocratic kings. How completely institutions supposed to have originated in the time of Moses, and to have been enjoined by him in writing, were neglected for centuries, is manifest from that remarkable occurrence in the reign of Josiah, when "the Book of the Law" * or "the Book of the Covenant" - was "found" in the Temple, when the king learnt, with ming- led surprise and consternation, the curse-laden illegality of idolatrous worship,^ and when he ordered a celebration of the Feast of Passover, such as had not been kept "from the days of the Judges who judged Israel, and all the days of the kings of Israel and of the kings of Judah."'* Finally, the regular pilgrimages to Jerusalem supposed to have been undertaken three times annually, were never, and in fact could never be, carried out in the manner ordained by the Pentateuch. The extra- ordinary sacrifices commanded by the same code could, in most cases, not be offered up in Jerusalem. Hence, there remained, for the service in the Temple, besides occasional visits of the pious from near and far, chiefly the celebration of the festivals^ and the performance of the daily sacrifices by the appointed priests. 2. We can, therefore, hardly be surprised at various minor discrepan- cies between the sacrificial ordinances of the Pentateuch and the practice of pious leaders in later times. The Law prescribes male victims for burnt-offerings;^ yet on an occasion of peculiar solemnity and importance, the people assisted by the Levites sacrificed co7vs as holocausts. '^ Samuel killed a sucking lamb for a burnt-offering,® although the lawful age was above one year old.^ According to the Pentateuch, a holocaust ac- companied by a bloodless offering was to be presented both morning and evening; '^ but in the time of Elijah, one chief daily sacrifice seems to have been performed at noon, while the morning sacrifice was not necessarily an animal, but simply a bloodless oblation;*' even in the reign of Ahaz it was probably the practice to present a holocaust in 2,3; 2 Chr. XV. 17; XX. 33; XXXIII. Tabernacles from the time of Joshua 17. On the discrepancy between 1 Ki. down to his own. These points, to- XV. 14 and 2 Chr. XIV. 2, 4; between gether with the momentous inferences 1 Ki. XXII. 44 and 2 Chr. XVII. B, sec they involve, will later be examined Sect. XXII; on the alterations of the with greater minuteness. Books of Chronicles, supra. ^ Comp. 1 Sam. I. 3, 21 ; IX. 25; etc. 1 2 Ki. XXII. 8, 6 Lev. I. 3, 10; see Sect. VUI. 2. 2 XXllI. 2, 21. 7 1 Sam. IV. 14, 15. 3 XXII. 11,13; XXIII. 4—20, 24. « 1 Sam. VII. 0. 4 XXIII.21.Nehcmiah(VlII.17)men- 9 Sec Sect. VIII. 3. lo See Sect. XIII. tions a similar neglect of the Feast of n 1 Ki. XVUI. 29; 2 Ki. III. 20. III. HISTORY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 29 the morning and a bloodless otfering in the evening. * - Libations consisted, in earlier times, not only of wine, but also of oil or water. ^^ It seems to have been customary that the priests received their due portions of meat hoilcd, and not ra7v; but in the former case, they could not so easily choose the pieces at their pleasure; therefore the sons of Eli demanded the raw flesh, ^ ^ as is alone lawful according to the Pentateuch. But in some instances, the very nature of the sacrifices is different in the Pentateuch and in history. The tliank-oflferings(A7/t7rtw42 — Gl 1) was seized with astonishment and despair when he heard "tlie words of the Book of the Law," the contents of which were entirely new to him ; ' which would have been impossible, had the precept of Deuteronomy regarding the septennial and public recital of the Law existed. - 2. The execution of those ordinances argues a degree of religious education utterly at variance with the multifarious forms *of perverse idolatry to which the Hebrews were addicted up to the sixth century. 3. Tlie priests whom history proves to have long been powerless and needy, appear in the Levitical law as men of influence and wealth; indeed even the Book of Deuteronomy represents their position as so little secured that it never ceases to make the most pathetic appeals on tlieir behalf, and recommends their helplessness to the benevolence and charity of the other tribes.^ Their ascendency was gradual, but steady ; it is impossible to believe that they would have renounced any of the privileges once obtained; it is against all evidence to assume that the Deuteronomist lowered the priestly demands "in order to adapt them to real or possible circumstances"; or that he "abandoned some of them because they were never carried out", and because he saw the necessity of greater moderation : those demands were the ideal emana- tions of a theory, and they inevitably grew with the growth of the Levitical system. 1. The Deuteronomist is more lenient and less authoritative in some of the Levitical injunctions. 5. The Book of Leviticus manifests a decided progress in the depth and purity of religious notions and in the spiritual character of public worship, especially with regard to tlie expiatory offerings not even mentioned in Deuteronomy : it bespeaks a very matured stage in the internal history of the nation. 6. The minuteness of the sacrificial ritual laid down in Leviticus, accords perfectly with tlie spirit of post-Babylonian times, and finds a faithful reflex in the thoroughly Levitical Books of Chronicles. 7. The Book of Leviticus, as a whole, cannot be placed before the sixth century, from various intrinsic reasons, among which are the exact description of the Babylonian exile and the allusion to the return of the captives. ^ i 2 Ki. XXIT. n sqq. 3 Deuter. XVIIT. 1 sqq.; etc. 2 Deut. XXXI. 9—13. 4 See the Introduction. III. HISTORY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 37 It must, therefore, be supposed tliat the sacrificial laws were gradually framed on the practice customary among the Hebrews from early times and steadily modified and improved, till they assumed, in the seventh century, the form which they bear in Deuteronomy, and were ultimately, on the basis of the latter, developed into the elaborate system laid down in Leviticus. The subject has indeed been similarly viewed by some of the acutest and most consistent critics. The opposite opinion, which claims a higher antiquity for the middle Books, over- looks or disregards the irrefragable arguments derived from the development of the Hebrew hierarchy. Jeremiah wrote, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts... I spoke not to your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices":'^ he could not possibly have used such language had he known the Books of Leviticus and Numbers, and con- sidered them as Mosaic; but the terms are quite compatible with the existence and diffusion of Deuteronomy ; they seem to lead to the inference that, in Jeremiah's time, the complicated Levitical law^s of sacrifice began to be compiled and to be forced upon the people as Divine, and that the prophet opposed them as injurious innovations calculated to impair the heart by the burden of an external service.^ He indeed mentions "the Law" and its interpreters :^ but his allusions refer to Deuteronomy, s and not to other Books of the Pentateuch. Yet some portions of Leviticus are most probably of earlier origin.'^ For it must be admitted that the author of Deuteronomy had before him, and occasionally referred to, at least the full outlines of the narrative and legislation of the three middle Books, ^^ which manifestly formed the groundwork of his own composition. He clearly distinguishes the covenant concluded at mount Horeb from that sanctioned, through Moses, in the land ofMoab; ^ ^ for he considers the former to have been broken by the disobedience of the Israelites in the desert, and to have therefore required a renewal and fresh confirmation, for re-constituting the Hebrews as the people of God. ' ^ Nor is it at all necessary to suppose that because the author of the Levitical laws attributed them to Moses, he believed them, at least partially, to be traceable to him. Literary fictions of this kind were frequent throughout antiquity, and occur repeatedly even in the preserved 5 Jer. VII. 21, 22. lo Comp. Deut. IV. 5; V. 12, 10; VI. 6 Comp. ibid. ver. 23. 1,17; XX. 17; XXIV. 8, 9. 7 Jer.II. S;Vni.S; XVIII. IS; comp. n Deut. XXVIII. 69; XXIX. 9— IJ; XI. 3, 4 ; XXXI. 32, 33 ; XXXIV. 1 3, is. comp. V. 2—5, 23—31 ; IV. 14. 8 Comp. Jer. XXXIV. 19 and l»eut. 12 Comp. Deal. XXVII. 9; XXVI. XV. 12. 9 See the Introduction. 16—19. 38 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. fragments of Hebrew literature: almost the whole of Deuteronomy was written in the name of Moses, the Cook of Daniel in that of Daniel, long after the age of these men ; and the Book of Enoch boldly pro- fesses to be the work of Enoch, in the seventh generation after Adam. "The writers had absolutely no taste for genuine history and no notion of criticism; they deemed history important not for the sake of its truthfulness, but for its underlying significance ; they did not, therefore, scruple to modify it for the furtherance of their objects, or to enrich it with additions." The Levitical laws can, in no essential point, be Mosaic, because they were, in no essential point, observed centuries after Moses. Yet the composition, on the whole, carefully and skilfully upholds the historical situation. God directs the Israelites through Moses, from the Tabernacle, on Mount Sinai, or in the fields of Moab. ^ The* offerings are invariably performed at the "Tent of Meeting.^ Moses is to make estimates or valuations which were later given by the High-priest or the priests.^ Some animals or parts of animals are to be burnt "without the camp".* The ashes of the altar of burnt- offering are to be taken "without the camp". ^ Persons affected with certain kinds of uncleanness are to stay "without the camp."^ Several specified perquisites are to be allowed to "Aaron and his sons,"' who form the objects of other ordinances also.^ Some laws, evidently recommended as examples for imitation in the practice of the Temple, are expressly adapted to the period of the migrations and encampment in the desert;^ while others are enacted for the time of the occupation of Canaan. ^" The law includes detailed commands respecting the transport of the Tabernacle and its utensils, ' ^ commands which, from the time of David, entirely ceased to be applicable: because they are meant to reflejgt the relative position and religious character of the tribes in the author's time. The local colouring is maintained, with peculiar fidelity, in Deuteronomy. The speeches are represented to have been delivered in the east of the Jordan, and are particularised by the most accurate statements of time and place. ^'-^ The people are on the point of crossing the river. ^^ The possession of Canaan is made 1 Lev. 1. 1 ; Vll. 38 ; XXV. 1 ; XXVI. 7 II. 3, 1 ; VI. 9 ; Vll. 39 ; etc. 46 J XXVn. 34 ; Num. I. 1 ; XII. 5 ; s l. 7, g, 11 ; II. 3; III. 13; VI. 2, 7, XXXVI. 13. 2 Lev. I. 3; III. 8, 13; 9, 13, 18; Vlll. 9; Xlll. 7, 39; etc. IV. 7, 14; VI. 9, 23; etc. ^ Lev. XVII. 1—6. 3 Lev. V. 15, 18, 25; XXVIl. 2 sqq., 10 XIV. 34 sqq.; XXV. 2 sqq. 12, 14, 16, 23, 27; etc. i' Num. IIL IV. 4 Lev. IV. 12, 21; XVI. 26, 27. 12 Deut. L 1—5; comp. III. 20, 24; 5 IV. 12; VI 4; etc. XL 30. 6 Xm. 46; XIV. 3, 8; comp. vers. i3 I. 7, 8; IV. 14, 22, 26; VI. 1; IX. 34 sqq. 1 ; etc. III. HISTORY OF SACRIFICES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 39 dependent on the faithful observance of the Law. ** The Israelites are charged, after the conquest of the land, to pronounce the blessing on mount Gerizim, and the curse on mount Ebal,'^ to erect large stones and to write the Law upon them; '^ and in fact, the Book is through(»ut so composed that minds unprepared by historical research can hardly detect the fiction. But this proves nothing more than that the reviser tlioughtfully designed the form and consistently carried out the dis- position of the work, as might justly be expected from a man of his superior and manifest ability. Those who insist upon this circumstance as a proof of authenticity might with equal propriety urge the general coherence in the narrative of the Iliad as an indisputable indication of its historical truth ; and it is well known that the composition and tendencies of the Homeric books offer more than one analogy to those of the Pentateuch. We refrain, in this place, from entering into the question whether the author's expedient of assigning to Moses his own laws or those of his time, and of thus claiming for them an exceptional sanction, can be justified before the tribunal of a pure morality ; it suffices to know that he pursued a lofty aim with unwa- vering earnestness, and that he hoped to attain it more easily by a literary artifice, which was then not uncommon. A few remarks will complete the history of the Jewish sacrifices. As their lawful performance was, by the Pentateuch, made dependent on the existence of the Temple, they were interrupted at its destruc- tion by Nebuchadnezzar and during the Babylonian exile. After the return of the Jews and the completion of the second Temple, they were continued with greater regularity and scrupulousness ; they were even, at times, encouraged and supported by heathen kings, as Antiochus the Great, who granted to the Jews an annual sum for sacrificial animals, besides a liberal allowance of flour, wheat, and salt. But some Syrian kings exacted a tribute for every sacrifice offered to Jehovah, till Demetrius Nicator repealed the tax. In the time of the Maccabees, during the supremacy of the Syrian invaders, the Temple service was entirely suppressed, but restored after the defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes, to be finally discontinued when the war under Titus had ended with the destruction of the national Sanctu- ary. A vestige of the old sacrificial worship has been preserved among the small sect of the Samaritans alone, who at Nablous, tlie ancient Shechem, still offer the annual paschal sacrifice. iMV. 1 ; VI. 18 ; VIII. 1 ; etc. ; comp. i5 XI. 29. however, IX. 4—7. i6 XXVII. 2—4. 40 . A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. IV. PURER NOTIONS ON SACRIFICES. In a higher degree, periuaps, than other ceremonial ol)servances, the rites of sacrifice were liable to be severed from motives of true morality, and thus to lose their boneficient influence. The elements of edification were encumbered and almost oppressed by outward acts and even coarse manipulations. Prayer or spontaneous confession, even if it accompanied the imposition of the hand, could obtain neither pro- minence nor weight. Sacrifices, therefore, easily became ineffectual for religious elevation ; they deteriorated into a lifeless form ; they were apt to engender that hollow and pharasaical hypocrisy which, under the studied appearance of righteousness, conceals iniquity and corruption. The Israelites were pre-eminently subject to such debasement. Irresistibly attracted by the numerous forms of superstition which surrounded them, and but rarely induced by some powerful mind to adopt the worship of Jehovah, soon again to relapse into their usual and more congenial creeds, they showed little readiness to understand the deeper import of the sacrifices : they failed to employ them either as manifestations of pious submission and gratitude, or as aids for recovering the peace and purity of their hearts. The danger of an unintelligent and mechanical service was naturally greatest in the earlier periods when the authority of public-spirited advisers was the principal and the precarious source of national instruction, because no written Law existed or was diffused to guide and to enlighten. Yet the admonitions and warnings of such noble teachers were equally incessant and impressive ; and they contained the germs of a universal religion. "I desire mercy", says Hosea, "and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt- offerings." ^ Amos, indignantly denouncing a false service devoid of rectitude, writes, "I hate — says God — I despise your feast-days, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies: for if you offer Me burnt-offerings, and your bloodless offerings, I will not accept them; nor will I regard the thank-offerings of your fat beasts... but let justice flow like water, and righteousness like a never- failing stream."'-' More emphatically still Isaiah inveighs against the profitless and sin- ful worship ungraced by piety. He predicts the most awful calamities "because the people honour God with their lips while their hearts are far from Him, and their fear of the Lord is a precept taught by men." ^ He proclaims with rising vehemence, "Of what avail is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord: I am satiated with burnt-offerings 1 VI. 6; comp.VIII.13; IX. 3, 4; XIV. 3. 3 Isai. XXIX. 13, 14; comp. Eccl. V. 3 V. 21—24; comp. IV. 4, 5. 1 ; Matth. XV. 7—9. IV. PURER NOTIONS ON SACRIFICES. 41 of rams, and the fat of fattened beasts; and for tlio blood of bullocks, and of lambs, and of lie-goats I have no desire . . . Bring- Me no more oblations of falsehood; incense is an abomination to Me, the new- moons, and sabbaths, and convocation of festive meetings; I cannot bear iniquity and solemn assembly . . . And when you spread forth your hands, I hide My eyes from you: even when you multiply prayer, I do not listen: your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean, remove your wicked deeds from My eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, restrain the insolent, procure justice to the orphan, plead for the widow." ^ It is a maxim in Proverbs, "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he offers it with a deceitful mind !" ^ But these and similar exhortations, however powerful, remained long unavailing; they required renewed injunction even during the latest periods of the commonwealth. In the prophecies of Jeremiah, God asks with stern reproof, "To what purpose does incense come for Me from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a distant land? your burnt- offerings are not acceptable, and your sacrifices are not pleasing to Me"; and he adds the reason, "Because you have not hearkened to My words, and have rejected My Law."^ And considerably more than a century later, Malachi finds cause for bitter complaint: the sacrifices were not presented in the true spirit ; avaricious priests polluted the altars by offering maimed and sick, yea even stolen animals; and God, offended and revolted, proclaims, "Who among you would close the doors, that you might not kindle fire on My altar in vain? I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will accept no offering at your hand."' In the mean time, however, the noti(ms of the deity and the true requirements of religion advanced in depth and refinement. Thought- ful men began to look upon sacrifices, as upon other ceremonials, as less and less essential ; while, in the same proportion, they attached greater significance to inward piety and to a life of truth and duty. In a Psalm attributed to Asaph, God declares, "I do not reprove thee on account of thy sacrifices, for thy burnt-offerings are continu- ally before Me; I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds ; for every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills ... If I were hungry, I would not tell tliee: for the world is Mine and the fulness thereof. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or 4 I. 11— 17. 6jor.VI.19,20;comp.XXXI.31— 33. 5 Prov. XXI. 27; comp. XV. S; ^ J. lO; comp. similar R'proaclics in I XXVm. 9; Eccl. IV. 17. vers. 7, 8, 13, 14. 42 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. drink the blood of goats? Oifer to God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows to the most High: and call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me." ' Another Psalm expresses more briefly the same sentiment, "I will praise the name of God with song, and will extol Him with thanksgiving: this will please the Lord better than ox or bullock with horns and hoofs ;"2 and similarly, "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacri- fice;"^ or "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacri- fices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."^ In the account of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, the chief stress is evidently laid on the frame of mind of the offerers, not on the nature of their gifts. ^ Some passages go even beyond this point. "Sacrifice and offering", says a Psalmist, "Thou dost not desire, this didst Thou reveal to me ; burnt- offering and sin-offering Thou dost not require. Then said I, Behold, I come with the scroll of the Book written in my heart; to do Thy will, my God, is my delight, and Thy Law is within my mind."^ And again, "0 Lord, open Thou my lips, and let my mouth relate Thy praise. For Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; Thou delightest not in burnt-offering: the sacrifices of God are a humble spirit; a humble and contrite heart, o God, Thou dost not despise."^ Or, "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God the exalted? shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with year- ling calves ? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my trans- gression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? He has declared to thee, man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?" s Terms like these seem almost to imply an absolute rejection of the sacrificial service, and to insist upon an internal approach to God's holiness alone. But such conclusion would be wholly unwarranted. The beautiful penitential Psalm from which we have quoted, concludes with a prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple, "then shalt Thou be pleased with the sacrifices of right- eousness, with burnt-offering and entire holocausts; then will they offer bullocks upon Thy altar." ^ Joel, interpreting a terrible locust plague as the Divine retribution for wickedness, indeed beautifully ex- horted the people, "Rend your heart, and not your garments"; but he ^ Ps. L. 8—15; comp. Tsai. XL. 16. comp. Ps. XV. 1—5; XXIV. 3— 6; L. 2 Ps. LXIX. 31, 32. 5—23. 6 Ps.XL. 7—9. 3 Prov.XXI.3. 4 1 Sam. XV. 22. ' Ps. LI. 17—19. 8 Mic. VI. 6—8. 5 See Comm. on Genes, pp. 92, 93; 9 Ps. LI. 20, 21. IV. PURER NOTIONS ON SACRIFICES. 43 exhorted them also to turn to God "with fasting, and with weeping-, and with mourning."'*^ Jeremiah, wrath at the intidorable callousness engendered by a false formalism, exclaimed, "Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Put your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, and eatflesh; fori spokenot to your fathers, nor commanded them at tlie time when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt- offerings and sacrifices. But this I commanded them, saying. Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people; and walk you in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well to you."^* But does this prove that Jeremiah entirely repudiated the sacrificial service? Nothing would be more erroneous. He elsewhere declared, "Thus says the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the priests, the Levites, want a man before Me to offer burnt-offerings, and to kindle bloodless offerings, and to perform sacrifice continually."^- Or does that passage at least, as has been contended, testify to the merely optional character of the offerings set forth in the Levitical law? This is antecedently impossible from the simple fact that Jeremiah could not have referred to the contents of Leviticus at all, as has above been proved. ^ ^ But it is also overthrown by the slightest comparison with the Levitical legislation. Optional were indeed the sacrifices and obla- tions voluntary from their nature, as the private holocausts, and the private thank-offerings; and herewith of course corresponds the wording of the text; '^ but the law of the public holocausts to be offered daily and on festivals, is plainly categorical ; ^ ^ the expiatory sacrifices are dis- tinctly and positively commanded as indispensable instruments for restoring purity of mind or body.^^ The case is similar with respect to Deutero-Isaiah, the gifted and noble-minded author of the last portion of the Book of Isaiah. '^ In one passage, he seems to rise to the highest and most spiritual form of worship. He first addresses the pious, "Thus says the Lord, the heaven is My throne, and the earth is My foot- stool: where is the house which you could build to Me? and where is the place for My rest? For all these things has My hand made, and all these things were called into existence, speaks the Lurd: but upon him will I look who is humble and lowly in mind, and who trembles at My word." Then abruptly turning to the wicked, and describing their sacrifices as abominations, because performed in iniquity, he adds, 10 Joel U.'l2, 13. 1* Lev. I. 2,3, 14; II. 1 ; HI. 1 ; etc. 11 VII. 21—23; comp. vers. 3—10; is Lev. VI. 1—6; XXIII. 12, 13, 1<, 111.16. 19, etc. 16 Lev. IV.2,3,13, H.clc; 12 Jcr.XXXIII.17,18;comp.XVII.26; V. 1 sqq., 14 sqq., 17 sqq., 20 sqq.; etc, XXXI. 14 ; XXXUI. 11. i3 See p. 37. n Chapt. XL. to LXVI. 44 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. "He who kills an ox, slays a man; ^ lie who sacrifices a lamb, strangles a dog; he who offers an oblation^ offers swine's blood; he that burns incense, worships an idol."- He declares, therefore, even the lawful sacrifices presented to Jehovah really like deeds of murder and idola- try, unless proceeding from an honest and unstained mind. Yet he is far from disparaging sacrifices in general. Drawing an enthusiastic picture of the happy time when justice, and uprightness, and charity, will reign triumphant, he promises that then God will bring even strangers to His holy mountain; for, says He, "I will make them rejoice in My house of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." ^ The compulsory suspension of sacrifices, whether occasioned by drought and famine, or hostile invasion and oppression, was always lamented as a national disaster.'' In fact, sacri- fices were never omitted in descriptions of the Messianic age, when distant nations are expected to accumulate offerings to Jehovah,^ and when kings will present their choicest treasures and the fatlings of their herds/ In this respect, legislators, priests, and prophets, shared the views of the bulk of the people ; offerings satisfied the religious aspirations of all alike. Yet the Levitical sacrifices have frequently been classed among the institutions permitted merely on account of the people's "hardness of heart." They were so regarded by most of the Fathers of the Church, and by several Jewish writers, and many catholic theologians. This opinion was advocated chiefly on dogmatic grounds; it was deemed inap- propriate that the people enlightened by revelation should have forms of public worship in common with heathens ; many, therefore, depreciated the value and origin of the sacrifices, which others, looking chiefly to the Pentateuch, were inclined to represent as Divine. But the view in question is utterly untenable. The sacrifices form undeniably an indispensable part, nay a main pillar of the Mosaic theology. They may indeed, in a certain sense, not incorrectly be described as a means both of religious discipline and of religious education; but the compilers of the Pentateuch thus emi)loyed them because they were convinced of their intrinsic value as instruments of grace; they would not have used them for the highest ends, had they 1 That is, acts as if he slew a man. 5 isai. XIX, 21. 2 LXVI. 1—3; comp. XLIII. 2.3, 24. 6 Tsai. LX. 7; comp. Ezek. XL— 3 Isai. LVI. 7; comp. LVIII. 2—10. XLVIII; cspcc. XL. 39; XLII. 13 ; XLIV. 4 Hos. m. 4; Joel I. 9, 13 sqq.; c(c. 29; XLV. 18—25; XLVL 20; Zeph. III. comp. also Dan. VIH. 11, 12; IX. 27; 10; Zech. XIV. 20, 21; Mai 1. 11; III XI. 31;Xn. 11. 3,4. IV. PURER NOTIONS ON SACRIFICES. 45 considered them a despicable heirloom of lieathen falsehood, which they would have shrunk from countenancing by injunctions meant to be of unchangeable and eternal application. We may admit that the ceremonial law of the Pentateuch, and more especially the sacrificial system, is symbolical in its character, and that the writers, evidently men of high cultivation and of con- siderable power of thought, and conscious of this symbolical form which they occasionally explained, attached importance not so much to the act of offering nor to the value of the oblation, as to the piety of heart thereby revealed : but it would be erroneous to assert that they were themselves fully accustomed to abstract religious notions, which they clothed in symbols merely in accommodation to the untrained understanding of the people. We may also admit that the ceremonial law of the Pentateuch, and the emblems which it emphtys, are, on the whole, simple and intelligible, worthy of a monotheistic religion, not compromising its primary principles, and free from hair-splitting casuistry, as is more evident if compared with its later Talmudical development: yet it grew out of, and was fitted for, some of the earlier — though not the earliest — phases of intellectual culture ; it ib adapted, it may be thoughtfully and efficiently, to a modest degree of national education only; and when it claims to be final and unalterable — when it declares, "You shall neither add to it, nor take away from it"^ — it becomes injurious and objectionable in the extreme. It was doubt- less, for many ages, beneficial in its operation; it constantly fostered the feeling of dependence on God and His will; it helped to separate the Jews from the heathens and their customs;^ it usefully occupied the senses of an untutored people; it admitted at least the possibility of disclosing to their minds the deeper ideas of religion. But cere- monials practised after that stage, when the symbol has ceased to be one with its meaning, unable to move the soul and heart, or to occupy the intellect, are not only unjustifiable, but become a dangerous obstacle to religious worship in spirit and in truth. It appears, therefore, that the Jewish mind possessed no aptitude to free itself from the bonds of ritualism, and to conceive a i)urely internal faith. Though capable of the loftiest abstractions of mono- theistic doctrines, it required and seized the aid of ceremonials. So far from gradually rising above them, the Jews develojied them, in the post-Biblical times, into a system unexampled in intricate minute- ness, and rendered innocuous almost solely by the power of the funda- mental truths of Mosaism. Occasionally, the necessity of sacrifices Deut. IV. 2. 8 Comp. Ephes. II. 14. 46 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRlFlCElS. was disclaimed by some independent sect, excelling in simple virtue and righteousness, as the Essenes or Ebionites; or by a class of men, who Jews by descent and education, rose to an ideal conception of the ritual commands. Thus Philo declared,^ "The mind, when with- out blemish and properly purified by perfect virtues, is itself the most holy sacrifice, being entirely and in all respects pleasing to God." Jesus Sirach^ taught: "He that keeps the Law, brings offerings enough; ... he that requites a good turn offers fine flour, and he that gives alms sacrifices praise . . . The offering of the rigliteous makes the altar fat, and the sweet savour thereof is before the Most High ... Do not think to bribe (God) with gifts, for such He will not receive ; and trust not to unrighteous sacrifices; for the Lord is Judge, and with Him is no respect of person." And the apostle PauP enjoined, „Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, unto God, which is your reasonable service."^ But such examples and doctrines either remained without abiding influence on the progress of thought among the Jews, and like a delicate branch soon withered off from the main stem; and either they helped to form other religious communities, and to impart to them vigour and vitality; or they were blended with fantastical alloy, which virtually rendered them profitless and unavailing. SotheKabba- lists held, that after the advent of the true Messiah no animal sacrifice would be required, since he would himself effect all that can be hoped for by sacrifices ; "the Messiah will deliver up his soul and pour it out unto death, and his blood will atone the people of the Lord." ^ Even in the New Testament, the ceremonial law, though rendered subordinate to piety and love, is by no means declared superfiuous, much less abro- gated. Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone."*^ "The curse of the Law"^ or its "yoke of bondage"^ is not the scrupulous adherence to rituals, but the neglect of moral duties. "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother has ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way : first be re- conciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."^ Indeed Christ acknowledged the sacrifices as binding. After having healed the leper, he bid him to present the offering prescribed in the Pentateuch for 1 De Victim, c. 5. 6 Malth. XXIII. 23; Luke XI. 42. 2 XXXV. 1— 15; comp. VII. 9. ^ Galat. III. 13. 3 Rom. XII. 1. 8 Galat. V. 1 ; Acts XV. 10. * Comp. Hebr. XIII. 16 ; 1 Pctr. II. 5. 9 Matth. V. 23, 24. 5 Comp. Isai. LIII. 12. IV. PURER NOTIONS ON SACRIFICES. 47 such occasions,''^ and he himself took part in the ceremonies of the paschal sacrifice. * ' Animal and vegetable oblations were indeed dis- carded by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and he declared that "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." '^ Yet he was far from renouncing the idea of offering itself; he centred his creed in the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice; he merely urged that an internal and moral relation is necessary between the guilty and the victim; that such connection does not exist between man who is responsible and the animal which is no free agent; that, there- fore, the sin of the former cannot be atoned by the blood of the latter; that it can only be propitiated by the death of a being at once human and, like God, guiltless. This may be the "spiritualisation of sacrifice;" but even in this conception, the idea of sacrifice reveals its fundamental and irremediable defects: it belongs to an elementary stage of religious life ; it flows from illusory and imperfect views of the attributes of the deity; it converts into a transcendental operation what must be a spontaneous emotion of the human heart. Nor ought it to be palliated by vague metaphors : it may be true that the notion of sacrifice is so bound up with our nature that it always manifests itself in some form; and that "no theory, religious or philosophical, dispossesses the heart of it"; '^ but the sacrifice of self-denial and of self-conquest is different from the sacrifice offered to the Deity to secure His favour or His pardon ; the former is the offspring of a true and active faith leading to ennoble- ment and to moral vigour; the latter, theoretically unjustifiable, may practically engender spiritual torpor and contemptible pietism. Now Talmudical and Rabbinical writings contain indeed maxims highly creditable to their authors and the times in which they lived. "The humble-minded is by God considered to have offered all the sacri- fices; for it is said, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit." "Sacri- fices, whether great or small, are equally acceptable, provided the heart is turned to God." "Acts of justice are more meritorious than all the sacrifices." Or more strongly, "Unless the mind be purified, the sacri- fice is useless; it may be thrown to the dogs." "He who engages in the study of the Law, requires neither holocaust nor bloodless offer- ing." The words, "A day in Thy courts is better than a thousand", ' * were explained to mean, "God said to David, I prefer thy sitting and studying before Me to the thousands of burnt-offerings whicli thy son 10 Matth. VIII. 4 ; Mark. I. 44 ; Luke 12 Hel.r. X. 4. V. 14; comp. Acts XXI. 20, 26; XXIV. '3 F. D. Maurice, Doctrine of Sacri- 17, 18; see Lev. XIV. 10 sqq. fice, pp. 45, 61, ct passim; F.P. Cobbe, H MaUli. XXVI. 17—20; Luke XXII. Religious Duty, pp. 318—323. •15; comp. Mark. XIV. 22. 1* Ts. LXXXIV. 11. 48 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. Solomon will offer on tlie altar." When, after the destruction of the Temple, sacrifices became unlawful, the value of payer and of absor- bed devotion was more and more acknowledged and appreciated. It was a maxim, "He who prays is considered as pious as if he built an altar and offered sacrifices upon it ;" or "prayer is deemed sacrificial service"; or "he who reads the laws of sacrifice, will be pardoned as if he had performed the offerings"; or "as the altar wrought atone- ment during the time of the Temple, so after its destruction the table." However, all these and similar sentiments are merely echoes of the utterances of ancient prophets, and imply no more than these. The discontinuance of the sacrifices was, as in the Biblical times, mournfully deplored as a dire calamity and a punishment for heinous sins. The words of Hosea, "We will offer the sacrifices of our lips", ^ were interpreted to mean, "we will pay the offerings with our lips:"- prayer was regarded as a poor and unworthy substitute for sacrifice, once the most precious privilege, but then alas ! no longer permitted. Offerings were declared to guarantee the preservation of heaven and earth. Nor are they in the whole range of Talmudical literature, pronounced to be unnecessary, much less objectionable, at the Mes- sianic time, though they would then be limited to thank-offerings: the restoration of the Temple and the restoration of the sacrificial service were deemed inseparable. And as the Samaritans of Nablus still regularly offer the paschal lamb, so the Jewish prayerbook abounds with fervent supplications for the advent of the time when the blood of sacrifices will again be sprinkled on the sides of the holy altar, and the priests will be reinstated in their functions. Not even the most distinguished of the Jewish scholars and philosophers of the Middle Ages, had the intellectual energy and penetration properly to estimate the value of sacrifices. Ebn Ezra repeated, the Divine glory would indignantly have withdrawn from the earth, had the Israelites neglected the precepts of the burnt-offerings. Maimonides, though pro- fessing to consider the sacrificial ordinances of the Pentateuch merely as an expedient accommodation to deeply rooted usages, laid it down as the first and most important rule, that the offerer must firmly believe in the force and efficacy of sacrifices ; and he bestowed the minutest care upon collecting, classifying, and expounding the endless host of Talmudical regulations with regard to the various kinds of offerings. Jehudah Halevi, in his elaborate work, the Book of Cusari, attempted to prove the Divine origin, and hence the eternal obligation of the oral law with its numberless expansions of the ceremonial ordinances. 1 XIV. 3 2 Comp. Ps. CXLI. 2. IV. PURER NOTIONS ON SACRIFICES. 49 Baruch Spinoza alone, trained by the philosophy of Descartes, stimu- lated by tlie astounding- discoveries in astronomy and other natural sciences, and above all guided by the divine impulse of genius, pene- trated to the root of religious and metaphysical questions. He boldly rose above tradition; renouncing the Ral)binical teachings of his youth, lie worked out, with uncompromising consistency, a system happily com- bining metaphysical speculation witli practical ethics. But this manful independence of thought brought him into hostile collision with his coreligionists; he was, by excommunication, repudiated as a member of their community; he exercised no influence on the development of the Synagogue, whose spirit was utterly foreign to his own. The formula of excommunication, written in Spanish, and recently re-discovered, is instructive. It bears date the Gth day of Ab 541G (i. e. 165G); after denouncing Spinoza's "wicked views and works", his "evil ways", his "learned heresies" and "abominable deeds", it concludes thus: "By the sentence of the angels, by the decree of the saints, we anathe- matise, cut off, curse, and execrate Baruch d'Espinoza . . . with the anathema wherewith Joshua anathematised Jericho . . . , and with all the curses set forth in the Law. Cursed be he by day, and cursed by night; cursed when he lies down, and cursed when he rises up; cursed when he goes out and cursed when he comes in; the Lord pardon him never; the wrath and fury of the Lord burn upon this man, and perse- cute him with all the maledictions of the Law. The Lord blot out his name under heaven, and separate him to his misfortune from all the tribes of Israel. And you who are faithful shall be blessed, if you take heed that no man shall speak to him, no man write to him, no man show him any kindness, no man stay under the same roof with him, no man come nigh him within four yards, no man read a book written by him." The wish of the fanatic Rabbis who composed this document — re-discovered to perpetuate their shame — has to this day been gratified within tlie pale of orthodox Judaism : Spinoza "is separated from all the tribes of Israel" ; if percliance he is mentioned, pious lips involuntarily whisper, "may his name be blotted out"; no one "reads a book written by him"; or if it be read, it is done in no spirit of sympathy, nor even of fairness; not alone is his philosophy distorted, execrated, and reviled with a warped dogmatism for which we are prepared, but impotent attempts are made to defame his moral character — a character of such matchless beauty and purity, that it is in itself a glory to mankind second only to the immortal philosoplier's intellectual greatness. Indeed,^ the Jewish mind so tenaciously preserved its traditionary character and peculiarity, that 50 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. even Moses Mendelssohn, though in his philosophical writings as liberal as might be expected from the contemporary of Kant and the friend of Lessing, exhibited in doctrinal matters no perceptible progress, as is manifest from his Hebrew Commentary on parts of the Old Testament; he felt it as his greatest grief and affliction to see his friend suspected of Spinozistic views ; and if this suspicion did not, as his biographers say, accelerate his death, it certainly embittered the last days of his life. "Far be it from me to think, writes the learned that the ceremonial laws are not obligatory in our age. All of them that have no connection with the holy land, must be sacred to us at every time and in every place; that which has been commanded by God, cannot be abrogated by men : neither could such attempts be ventured without undermining public morality ; for if the Law of God is, in any of its provisions, modified by human arbitrari- ness, it would no longer be regarded as absolutely and unchangeably binding. Nor can the ceremonial laws, which make man virtuous in more than one respect, at any time lose their salutary influence." Another contemporary Rabbi, Dr. L. Philippson, the mouthpiece of a large and more liberal section of the Jews acknowledging the absolute force of the written, but not of the oral Law, expresses himself in a similar sense. "Man is never and at no stage able to dispense with ceremonies entirely." "No religion. can exist without them." "By their neglect the religion of the heart is easily forfeited, or loses immea- surably in efficacy, coherence, and power, and runs the danger of decay." The Hebrew prophets and the Jewish doctors were able to perceive the insufficiency, but not the superfluousness or obnoxious tendency of ceremonial worship. They discovered many fatal errors in heathen religions, and adhered with fervour to their purer convictions ; but a lack of independence, the sad inheritance of their eastern origin, prevented the adoption of a rational religion, the result of matured intelligence, and solely reliable as a guide in the intricacies of life. However, the modern Jews, especially those scattered among the Teutonic nations to which they appear to have a peculiar affinity, fairly promise to pass beyond the narrow boundaries of their ancestors, and by blending the eastern and western character, to produce a new type superior to either and not unlikely to realise, though in a diffe- rent manner, the proud hopes which live in their race. Spinozism counts among them not a few admirers and even adherents. In the prayer-books of some recent reform-sects, as that of Hamburgh and • Berlin, the passages relating to sacrifices have been modified or sup- pressed; and when this subject was discussed in the German conferen- ces of Rabbis, one of the members, distinctly declared, that the prayer IV. PUREE NOTIONS ON SACRIFICES. 51 for the return to Jerusalem and the restoration of the sacrifices, is a hollow falsehood; and he thereby expressed not only the souse of the assembly, but of the vast majority of his educated co-religionists. We have above quoted some advanced opinions on sacrifices from the writings of the Hebrews. But let it not be supposed, that heathen literature is less rich in utterances of a similar import. Indeed a full comparison shows the balance of superiority to be on the side of the latter. It must not be urged that refined notions wore not found among the multitude, but in the limited class of the wise and the enlightened. In this respect, the case was not different among the pagans and the Israelites. Moreover, occasional instances or exceptions suffice to show that such improvement lay within the intellectual range of the nations, and might, therefore, be gradually diffused. Nor did the philosophers withhold their instruction and counsel within the limits of the civil laws. They ridiculed the mercenary and selfish spirit in which sacri- fices were frequently performed. They described it as iniquity, rather than piety, to present valueless and contemptible offerings. They pronounced it disgraceful to say to the gods, "If you remember the gifts I have bestowed upon you, and love me accordingly, I shall honour you again with increased presents ; for I offer them for the sake of expected favours." They derided the frivoKty so often exhibited at sacrifices, festivals, and solemn assemblies. "If a sensible person", says Lucian, "witnesses the silliness with which the religious rites are conducted, and considers what notions most people form of the nature of the gods, and what they pray for, he must be very dejected indeed, if he is not dis- posed to laugh at their folly and childishness". The same writer, in an amusing and humorous description, strongly satirizes the whole of the sacrificial ritual — the wreathing of the victim, its heart-rending cries when killed, which are "the music of the solemn act", the blood-stained figure of the priest, though pure hands only are professedly admitted near the sacred implements, and the other ceremonies and incidents — ; and he concludes his treatise on sacrifices with the words, "It would be impossible for any one to stigmatise all the superstitions of the multitude, whether like Democritus he laughs at their ignorance, or like Heraclitus he weeps at their folly." In another work he logically contends that as the Greek gods are unalterably subject to primeval decrees and infallible directions of Fate and the Parcae, they are them- selves powerless to grant or to refuse any favour; it is, therefore, idle to pray or to sacrifice to them; and he then makes Zeus say, "He who offers to us sacrifices, does not wish to secure advantages, but merely to show his sense of obligation, and to repay in somo manner the E 2 52 A. THE PBmClPAL SACRIFICES. benefits he has received from us, or somtimes simply to do homage to us as to his superiors." Yarro declared all sacrifices as superfluous ; "the true gods", he said, "neither desire nor demand them, much less can those made of brass, clay, plaster, or marble care for them; hence no guilt is contracted by not ofi'ering sacrifices, and no favour gained by offering them." From a large number of the most un- exceptionable sentiments on the true value of sacrifices, we content ourselves with quoting a few. The best sacrifice is a pure mind and a passionless soul: the bad take fruitless trouble in worshipping the gods. It is becoming to a good man alone to sacrifice to the gods and to appeal to them by prayer, offering, and worship: but to receive gifts from a defiled person neither behoves a good man nor a god. Wicked persons fancy that they are able to appease Jupiter with gifts and sacrifice: they lose their labour and their money; for no petition of the perjured is acceptable to him. The citizens must keep their souls free from every baseness, for the gods do not look with favour upon the sacrifices and costly donations of the wicked, but upon the just and excellent works of the virtuous. Let men, in their offerings, approach with piety, but remove luxury; he who acts differently will be punished by god himself. The deity looks on the heart or disposition of the sacrificer rather than on the number of the sacri- fices. The simplest gifts, as herbs, fruits, and flour, if presented in a humble spirit, are more acceptable than the most sumptuous heca- tombs. Honouring the gods does not consist in victims however choice and resplendent with gold, but in the good and upright inten- tion of the worshipper; the right-minded are religious with barley and porridge, but the wicked do not escape their impiety, though profusely staining the altars with blood. The little frank-incense which ac- companies the offerings, is more essential and more prized by the gods than the victims. The plainest and least expensive vessels are the most appropriate for sacrificial ceremonies. Man ought to offer elevation of the soul, and calm reflection free from all disturbing emo- tions; for this is true worship and safety. Piety renders even the smallest gift welcome. God neither stands in need of presents, nor is it in our power to bestow upon him any. Tlie celestial divinities have no pleasure in slaughtered bulls, but in good faith to be kept honestly and even without controlling witness. Sumptuous offerings accustom men to luxury, and lead to the delusion that the deity can by presents be bribed into remission of deserved punishment; whereas the knowledge that the gods have no desire for idle gifts, but for rec- titude of life, would help to make the heedless just and i)ious. Those I IV. PURER NOTIONS ON SACRIFICES. 53 who wish to sacrifice must do so in purit3^ This purity does not merely reveal itself in a clean body and clean garments, but in "a soul purified from vices", since the soul is the divinest part of man, and most akin to the deity. The temple of Epidaurus bore the inscription, "He who enters tlie fragrant temple must be pure ; but purity is to har- bour holy thoughts." Piety is a knowledge of the proper reverence due to the gods: the pious sacrifice to the gods and keep themselves pure ; and the wise men are the only priests. The dialogue "Alcibiades the Second", whether the work of Plato or of some later philosopher, is an elaborate argument on the inutility of addressing to the gods special prayers, since man does not know whether, if granted, they would prove real boons. In the course of the discussion Socrates remarks, "The divine nature, I conceive, is not such as to be seduced by presents like a usurer . . . For it would be a dreadful thing indeed, if the gods looked to gifts and sacrifices, and not to the soul, if it be holy and just." The same subject, and probably with reference to that dialogue, is treated by two of the greatest Roman satirists. The second satire of Persius, a noble rebuke of superstitious, sordid, and double-tongued prayer, contains the following lines; "He sues for wealth: the labouring- ox is slain, "And frequent victims woo the g-od of gain! "'0 crown my hearth with plenty a!id with peace, "'And g-ive my flocks and herds a larg-e increase!' "Madman ! how can he, wlien, from day to day, "Steer after steer in ofl'ering- melts away? "Still he persists; and still new hopes arise, "With harslet and with tripe to storm the skies :" and it concludes with a passage that has not unjustly been described as "not only the quintessence of sanctity, but of language :" "No; let me bring: the Immortals, what the race "Of g-reat Messala now depraved and base, "On their hug-e charg^er, cannot; — bring" a mind "Where leg-al truth and moral sense arc joined, "And holy depths of thoug-ht exempt from stain, "A bosom dyed in honour's nobh.'st g-rain, "Deep-dyed: with these let me approach the fane, "And Heaven will hear the humble prayers I make, "Thoug-h all my offering- be a barley-cake." In a composition equally famous for soundness of views and wealth uf illustration, Juvenal also (in the tenth satire) sets forth the vanity "f human wishes, whether the supplication be for riches, power, and glory, or for talents and accomplishments; he then proposes the follow- ing form of prayer, as rational as it is beautiful : 54 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. "0 Thou, who know'st the wants of human kind, "Vouchsafe me heahh of body, health of mind, "A soul prepared to meet the frowns of fate, "And look undaunted on a future state; "That reckons death a blessing-, yet can bear "Existence nobly, with its wcig-ht of care; "That anger and desire alike restrains, "And counts Alcides' toils and cruel pains "Superior far to banquets, wanton nig-hts, ' "And all the Assyrian monarch's soft delig-hts:" and he concludes thus : "Here bound, at leng-th, thy wishes: I but teach "What blessings man, by his own powers, may reach. "The path to peace is virtue. We should see, "If wise, Fortune, nought divine in thee: "But we have deified a name alone, "And fixed in heaven thy visionary throne!" The Persians considered the reading of the Law as an offering pre- sented to the divine word (Honover), and as the daily food of the soul. They consumed the whole of the sacrificial animal, convinced that "the deity requires only the soul of the victim, and nothing else". But more decided than any eastern nation, the Hindoos passed occasion- ally within the domain of the purest spiritualism. As the principal of the five daily sacrifices obligatory on every master of the house, they regarded the study of the Vedas, the revealed wisdom of Bramah. Next in sacredness and importance stood the exercise of hospitality. The worshipper was commanded to present a bloody sacrifice by slaying all his passions, as anger, covetousness, malice, and envy. He was to ad- dress the god thus, "All my works, good or evil, I present to thee, in the fire of thy favour, as a burnt-offering." Unless he loves God, he cannot expect acceptance of his gifts. Voluntary sacrifices of gratitude and submission are alone desired. As God cannot become richer by the offering, he looks upon the intention, not upon the magnitude of the gift. He delights in the pigeon of the poor as much as in the thousand oxen of the rich. But he regards as the choicest sacrifice the conquest of man over his evil impulses and his worldly pleasures; for this he prizes as a self-sacrifice securing the crown of heaven and eternal bliss. Those who so hallow themselves, exchange worthless vanities for glorious and eternal treasures. In short, "the love of God, the child of pious wisdom, is the noblest gift, the purest offering." V. THE HEBREW APPELLATION OF SACRIFICE AND ITS MEANING. The name {Korhan\ by which the notion of sacrifice is designated in the Old Testament, affords no clue as to its nature and significance ; it is general in import and vague in its etymological sense ; it means V. NAME AND MEANING OF SACEIFICE. 55 merely somethinfj that is hro^ighi forward or presented ; and it may hence be best rendered by the comprehensive term offering. Attempts have been made to invest that name with a deeper interpretation. It has been supposed to imply "a means for effecting a close proximity between God and the offerer", or "a means for hringiiuj the Israelites near God", and "an instrument of intercession with Him" ; it has hence been explained as "an agency of sanctification through the priests who are near God", or as "a connection and a community of life with the deity." But these and similar views have no foundation in the Hebrew Scriptures; they were suggested by preconceived theories on the nature of sacrifices; and their framers, instead of deducing the thing from the name, expounded the name from the supposed attribu- tes of the thing — a process which the indistinctness of the former renders both easy and tempting. Such premises naturally led to un- - tenable conclusions : the end of the Mosaic sacrifices was declared to be "that the existence or life of the soul (that is, of sin) be given up to God unto death, in order to obtain the true existence or sanctification by the union with God, who alone has true existence, and there- fore true holiness", so that the sacrifice is "at once a symbolical (or subjective) and sacramental (or objective) act" — a fanciful defini- tion devoid of probability and Biblical support. It is true that the word Korhan is exclusively used in reference to objects devoted to the deity for religious worship. It is, in this respect, at once the most generic and the most specific name: for on the one hand, it includes not only all classes of sacrifice, but also sacred gifts not intended as sacrifices in the stricter sense, and not presented on the altar; and on the other hand, it signifies the special portion of an offering devoted to God or His priests. In fact, with a few exceptions easily to be traced and accounted for, it occurs solely in the Third and Fourth Books of the Pentateuch : it seems, therefore, at a compara- tively remote period, to have been restricted to the sphere of religion, and to have fallen into disuse with regard to secular donations. But it implies, etymologically, nothing else but gift or present; it is so taken and expressed by most of the ancient authorities, and the sacrifices are distinctly called gifts. The Literature of the Old Testament exhibits indeed several instances of a gradual modification in the meaning of words which, in accordance with the progress of religious culture, were imperceptibly understood in a purer, more refined, or more pro- found sense, as is undoubtedly manifest in many anthropomorphic ex- pressions employed with respect to God even in passages emphatically teaching His in corporeality: but there is no evidence to [prove that 56 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. thewoi6.A'orban was subjected to a similar change, that it lost its simple and primary meaning, or that it was spiritualised in harmony with later or more definite conceptions regarding sacrifices. Nor was the infu- sion of a new idea into the old designation necessary; for the names of the various kinds of offering conveyed, with sufficient distinctness, their specific nature or their peculiar object. Yet this etymological meaning of the word does not justify us in tracing the character of the sacrificial laws of (he Pentateuch to the injunction which commands the Hebrews "not to appear before the Lord empty:" the origin of similar conceptions is separated, by a wide interval of time and spiri- tual advancement, from the concluding stages of the Levitical system; in fact, the injunction quoted did not at all refer to sacrifices in the stricter sense, but to the dedication of firstlings and tithes on the three great agricultural festivals. The definition of Korhan is therefore, clearly, a gift offered to God for any of the various religious purposes arising in the life of indivi- duals or of the nation. It is of collateral, if not subordinate, importance that the gift was presented in a place bearing the character of holiness, and with rites typifying worship and devotion. Yet the offerings more properly so called were those presented on the altar of the common Sanctuary ; it is these offerings alone that are here treated of, while other religious gifts, dedicated to the sustenance of the priests, the ser- vants of God, or contributions destined for to the support of the Sanc- tuary, are entirely excluded. And in as much as every sacrifice was connected wdth burning to God on the altar either the whole or a part of it, and as this was naturally considered as the gift ]par excellence, the name ishch or oblation made by fire is frequently used in reference to all classes of offerings, ^ even to the frank-incense placed upon the shew-bread cakes, because it was burnt after their removal. ^ History and experience do not countenance the numerous specu- lations which have been propounded on this subject. Sacrifice has been defined as "a devotion of the perishable and unreal existence to the eternal and absolute being" ; as "a negation by which man divests himself of his subjectivity"; as a means "of proving by deed the free- dom of religious life through liberation from finite limits" ; or as "an agent for effecting the approach of sensual man to God, by releasing him from his material condition and elevating his nature into the sphere of the spiritual and the Divine." Nations capable of such and similar abstractions may well be expected to have passed entirely beyond the childlike stage of sacrifices. 1 Comp. Lev. I. 9, 13, 17 ; 11. 2, 10, 16; III. 3, 5, 11; IV. 35; V. 12; VI. 10; etc. 2 Lev. XXIV. 7. VI. CLASSIFICATION OF SACRIFICES. 57 VI. GENERAL SURVEY AND CLASSIFICATION OF HEBREW SACRIFICES. The offerings of the Hebrews, consisting like those of most other nations," either of animals or of vegetable productions (p. S), were di- vided into the bloody and the bloodless kind. Now the sacrifice may either be designed to evince the offerer's absolute submission to the Divine sovereignty, and to acknowledge God's unlimited sway over the destinies of man ; or it may be intended as an expression of gratitude for blessings enjoyed; or it may serve to implore forgiveness and ex- piation for offences committed; or lastly, it may mark the return of a state of purity after a period of uncleanness, as after the recovery from leprosy or "a running issue." In the first case, it was a Bunit- offcriiKj'^ in the second, a Tlumk-offering or Praise-off erbuj; in the third, a' Shi-o/fcrin(i or a Trespass-o/ferbirj ; and in the last, a Piirificatio)i- olfcriHtj. The thank-offerings included the Paschal Sacrifice^ the offering of the firstborn of sacrificial animals and of the frstfruils^ whether these were the new ears of corn, or the loaves baked from the new grain, or any other vegetable production of the land; and to the sin-offerings may be counted the Offcrimj of Jealousy presented to test a woman's conjugal fidelity. As a rule, the burnt-, the ex- piatory, and the purification-offerings were animal sacrifices, though in exceptional cases a cereal sin-offering was permitted or prescribed, while the thank-offerings could either be animals or vegetable ob- lations. The animal sacrifices, regarded as pre-eminently acceptable, were generally accompanied by bloodless offerings, and in many cases also by a libation of wine or a drink-offerbuj^ varied in quantity and graduated according to the nature of the chief sacrifice. Bloodless offerings were, however, also presented alone and independently of animal sacrifices, whether for the whole people and regularly, as the shew-bread consisting of twelve unleavened cakes, and the frank-wcense burnt by the High-priest every morning and every evening on the golden altar in the Holy; or for individuals and on special occasions, as eucharistic oblations, the offerings of the firstlings and firstfruits, the cereal sin-offering, and the offering of jealousy. The Hebrew sacrifices may, therefore, be surveyed in the fol- lowing table : 58 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. I. Burnt-oflfering — exclusively an animal sacrifice. II. Joy-offering — either animal or vegetable. 1. Praise-offering. 2. Thank-offering. 3. Paschal sacrifice. 4. Offering of firstborn animals. 5. Offering of firstfruits. a. Offering of the first new ears of corn. b. Offering of the first new bread. c. Offering of the firstfruits or other vegetable productions. III. Expiatory offering. 1. Sin-offering — mainly animal. 2. Trespass-offering — animal. 3. Offering of Jealousy — vegetable. IV. Purification-offering — mainly animal. 1. After childbirth. 2. After recovery from leprosy. 3. After recovery from a running issue. V. Drink-offering. VI. Shew-bread. VII. Incense-offering. Besides this classification, another in Voluntary and Obligatory Sacrifices might be established: the former comprised the private holo- causts, and the thank-offerings presented in consequence of a vow or as a free-will gift ; the latter, the public holocausts, the private and public praise- offerings, and the other sacrifices above enumerated. Again, offerings may be divided into those that were most hohj which stood in the closest connection with the altar or the sanctuary, and those that were less holy. The former could only be touched by holy persons, that is, by priests, to whose share all that was not burnt on the altar or elsewhere exclusively fell, and by whom alone — the male Aaronites — it was to be consumed, in the holy place, that is, in the Court of the Sanctuary, near the brazen altar, and of course in a state of purity : they comprised the incense-offering and the shew-bread, because both were presented in the Holy itself, and the other vegetable oblations of which a part was burnt on the altar "as a memorial" before God, and which were therefore, like the shew-bread, unleavened; the sin- and trespass-offerings, and the holocausts, which were invariably killed on the northern side of the altar, and not like the thank-offerings, in what- ever part of the Court. The less holy offerings might be eaten, whether partially or completely, in any locality within the holy town, in a clean VII. ANIMALS AND VEGETABLES OFFERED. 59 place, by the officiating priests, their families, including their wives and daughters, and every clean member of the household, but not by any- one else or "a stranger", not even the married daughter of a priest living in the house of her husband; whoever partook of them inad- vertently had to make increased restitution : they were the thank- offerings, the firstborn of clean sacrificial animals, the firstlings of oil, wine, and corn, and the paschal sacrifice ; of the thank-offerings and the firstlings, the fat and the fat parts alone, of the paschal lamb, which was roasted entire, nothing came on the altar; the firstfruits were merely placed before that holy structure. Some of the offerings were presented by individuals exclusively, viz. the Pesach, the trespass-offering, the offering of jealousy, of the firstborn animals, of the firstfruits of vegetable productions, and of purification; others in the name of the nation alone, viz. the shew-bread, the incense, the offering of the first new ears of corn and of the first new bread ; the rest — burnt-, praise-, thank-, sin-, and drink-offering — were presented both as private and public sacrifices. The Hebrew offerings had a threefold aim — they were either designed to express the harmony of. the worshipper with God, or to restore^ or to preserve it: the first end was attained by the joy- offerings, the second by the expiatory and the purification-offerings, the third by the holocausts, the shew-bread, and the incense — a division which clearly discloses the internal nature of the various sacrifices. VII. ANIMALS AND VEGETABLES OFFERED. The animals prescribed for sacrifices, were naturally limited to those characterised in the Pentateuch as "clean". ^ Of QUADRUPEDS, therefore, the cloven-footed and the ruminants were permitted.- But among these again the Law singled out the species which formed the ordinary food of the Israelites, were most valuable to agricul- turists, and therefore really involved a sacrifice, an act of devoted self- denial; especially as the same animals, being bred, reared, and domesti- cated by the worshipper, bore a close connection with his pursuits and his ordinary life, and were creatures which he "had toiled for and made grow." Hence the quadrupeds ordained for sacrifices were not beasts like the hart, the roebuck, or the fallow deer, though these were con- sidered clean and lawful for food,^ but mainly cattle^ whetlier from the herd or from the flock ; of the former class the hullock and ox, the 1 Comp. Gen. VII. 2, 3 ; VIII. 20 ; Lev. 2 Lev. XI. 3. XI.47;XIV.4;XX.25;Dcut.XIV.ll,20. 3 Deut. XIV. 5. 60 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. cow and calf\ of the lattoi' class, the sheep, male or female, the ram and the himh, the (joal, male or female, and the Idd of the goats. Of FOWLS, lurtlc-dovcs alone and young pigeons were to be offered; not only because, as Philo observes, the pigeon is by nature the most gentle of all birds which are domesticated and gregarious, and the turtle-dove the most unoffending of those which love solitude ; but because they were abundantly reared and kept in Palestine,^ and formed the principal animal food of the poor: they were also found wild in mountains and ravines throughout the 'country ;2 tra- vellers were struck by their vast numbers in the vicinity of Ashkelon, and especially near Jerusalem, where in one tower more than 5000 were observed ; they are met with near the Dead Sea and the Lake of Tiberias, and in every part of Syria. As their value was incon- siderable, they were indeed in exceptional cases admitted as holo- causts and sin-offerings, but they were unlawful for thank- or praise- offerings, and could never be presented as a public sacrifice. Yet in such large numbers were they constantly required, especially by women who had to offer them in all cases of impurity, issue of blood, and childbirth, that they sometimes rose to a very high price, and even compelled the adoption of sacrificial regulations of less stringency. Geese were, and are still, very rare in Palestine, and are not mentio- ned in the Old Testament. Cocks and hens are supposed to have been rejected because they seek for food in dunghills, and might therefore be polluted by unclean insects or reptiles, or because they were not valued as food; but more probably because, at the time of the com- pilation of Leviticus, they were not yet domesticated in Palestine; they are, in fact, never introduced in the Hebrew Scriptures ; they do not seem to have been common in western Asia before the Persian period; but they are repeatedly alluded to in the New Testament, and appear extremely frequent in the Talmudical age. Fishes were not at all accepted as sacrifices, evidently because they multiply freely in the water, without the care and contl-ol of man. The significance of all these restrictions is manifest: the Law demanded for sacrifices not merely the tamest animals and such as were most readily at hand, but those which, at the same time, reminded the worshippers of their daily labour, of their dependence on Him who had allowed it to prosper, and of their deep obligations to His un- ceasing beneficence. Although the stag and the deer, when kept and bred, were unquestionably the property of individuals, they could, as a 1 Comp. Isai. LX. 8; 2 Ki. VI. 25. 2 Ezek. VII. 16; Jer. XLVIII. 28; Cant. II. 14; Ps. XI. 1; John II. 14. VII. ANIMALS Als^D VEGETABLES. 61 species, not be claimed by legal owners ; and migbt well be regarded, even if not presented on the altar, as belonging to God, the Lord of nature: "I will take no bullock, says God, out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds; for every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon thousands of hills" (Ps. L. 1), 10). Not all the productions of the land, nor all the articles of food, were demanded, but those only which man had mude his own by honest exertion and watchful care. The obla- tions were indeed to represent the property and sustenance, but also the active life and energy of the people. They were a partial resti- tution of the blessings which God had mercifully vouchsafed to the offerer; they impressed the seal of religion upon his gain and the produce of his work; they hallowed his life, for the maintenance of which that gain was destined. But though this conception appears obvious, the ordinances in respect to the sacrificial animals have frequently been explained in a manner both so fantastical and so foreign to the spirit of the Pentateuch, that a refutation is scarcely required. It has been supposed that such ani- mals were appointed which heathens held sacred or worshipped, and which the Hebrews were therefore to be accustomed to slaughter: but there is scarcely an animal which was not so revered in the ancient world; and the Levitical law does not systematically carry out the principle of opposition to pagan rites or notions. More objectionable still than this opinion, which has at least an historical tendency, is the typical view. It was asserted that the bullock, the sheep, and the goat, valuable in the order mentioned, were designed to recall the memory of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob, who present the same gradationof excellence and virtue; while the turtle-dove and the pigeon were symbols of Moses and Aaron. By some, those animals were regarded as emblems of the people of Israel itself. Others con- tended that the bullock was chosen because it appeared most suitable to typify the power of Christ and of his work, the lamb his innocence, the goat his appearance as a sinner, the pigeon his gentleness, the turtle-dove his intimate relationship with God, the oil and wine his blood, and the flour his flesh and sacrifice, or his obedience manifest- ing itself in good works. But these explanations, trifling and playful, are well calculated to reveal the baseless fallacy of all typical theories. Now the value of the victim was generally proportionate to the dignity or importance of the occasion. The noblest sacrifice was that of the hullock, which was so considered also by the Greeks and Romans, ,the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, the Egyptians and Persians, who offered it, on solemn opportunities, to their principal deities, to Zeus, to 62 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. Isis and Osiris, to Baal and the Sun. It formed the humt-offering of the whole nation on the days of the new-moon and on the high festivals, and for inadvertent transgressions; of the chiefs of the people at the consecration of the Tabernacle ; of the Levites at their initiation ; and of private individuals on all momentous emergencies. It was the sin-off e ring for the whole theocratic community, or for its representa- tive, the High-priest ; for the priests at the inauguration in their solemn functions, and for the High-priest when, on the Day of Atonement, he implored the pardon of God for his sins and those of his house ; while Aaron, when actually entering upon his pontifical duties, offered a young calf. It was even chosen for thank-off erimjs in cases of peculiar joyfulness. Next in value and estimation stood the ram, which, like the bullock, was the type of strength and boldness. It was presented as a holocaust or a thank-offering by the whole people, or its chiefs; by the High-priest or an ordinary priest, and by the God-devoted Nazarite; but never by a common Hebrew; and as it was primitively employed for a medium of exchange and barter, it was the ordinary animal for the trespass-offering originally instituted to expiate violation of the rights of property. Goats were prized less highly and deemed less palatable than even sheep. Yet a kid of the goats was the special victim for sin- offerings, partly because the chief species of cattle had long been appropriated to the other sacrifices when the expiatory offerings were introduced, and partly because the legislators desired to bring this most important and most spiritual class of sacrifice within the means of poorer people — a consideration which prompted even the admission of a vegetable sin-offering, though the sprinkling of blood was ordinarily the very centre of the rituals of atonement. It was ordained for the sin-offering of the whole people, on the days of the new-moon and the festivals, after unintentional transgressions, and immediately after the consecration of the priests and the Sanctuary ; and of the chiefs and private Israelites on all ordinary occasions ; it was admitted for private hiirnt- and thank-offerings-, but it was never prescribed for public burnt-offerings. Of the gradual substitution of bullocks instead of goats for expiatory offerings we have treated above (p. 3 3). The lamb, the usual animal food of eastern tribes, was regu- larly employed for the daily public holocausts, presented on festivals in increased numbers and accompanied by bullocks and rams; and very commonly for private burnt- and thank-offerings, for sin-, trespass-, and purification-offerings. VII. AKIMALS AND VEGETABLES. 63 The gradation in the clioice of the victims is plainly manifest from the precepts as to sin-offerings: the High-priest or the whole community required a bullock ; a chief of the people a male kid of the goats ; and a common Israelite a female kid of the goats or a female lamb. The pigeon and i\\Qlnrlle-doveYfQXQ enjoined as burnt- and sin-offer- ings in cases of lustration after a period of uncleanness, as after the cessation of a "running issue", whether of a man or a woman, or after a' Nazarite's unavoidable contact with a corpse ; they were allowed as private holocausts, and accepted from poorer people, instead of more valuable animals, as sin-offerings, and as purification-offerings after recovery from leprosy and after childbirth; but they were not admitted as thank-offerings, nor ever formed a part of the great public or festival sacrifices. All these animals were variously combined, multiplied, or exchanged in accordance with the occasions for which they were required; the reasons for the choice, though not always obvious, may in many instances be pointed out with some degree of probability, and they testify to the thoughtful character of the sacrificial ordinances. No less manifest is the principle of the Pentateuch in the selection of the vegetable prodKctio?is that were to be taken for the bloodless offerings : it is entirely identical with that set forth in respect to ani- mals. The chief materials were flour^ or in some cases, roasted grains rubbed out of the early ears of corn, and mine; for bread and wine are frequently named as the principal means of sustenance, and the choi- cest blessings of a fertile soil; and next in importance came oil, which, belonging to the daily necessaries of Eastern life, was commonly employed for libations and for preparing cereal offerings : these three productions therefore are often coupled to express the staple of Ca- naan's wealth and of the people's nourishment. Moreover, as accessories were ordained frank-incense and salt, the latter to be added on nearly all occasions ; and leaven or honey to be used in a few instances. Not the free and common gifts or the spontaneous vegetation of nature, how- ever esteemed and precious, were to be dedicated to the deity, not figs, pomegranates, dates, or almonds, though forming characteristic pro- ducts of Palestine, but those objects only, which the offerer had made his individual property by exertion and anxious attention and which ho had- obtained by the sweat of his brow: gratitude, humility, self-abne- gation, and the reality of a hard-working life, were to be mirrored in every offering. The simplicity of these regulations appears more strikingly still if compared with the practice of other nations. As offerings were exten- 64 A. THE JPMNCIPAL SACRIFICIJS. sively supposed to be the sustenance of the gods (p. .")), we find, indeed, theoretically the principle adopted almost everywhere that the victims should be animals useful to man as food, such as bullocks, sheep, stags, pigs, and fowl; while those which are serviceable to him by their labour merely, as donkeys and elephants, were not acceptable ; and useless and noxious animals, as monkeys and serpents, were entirely rejected. Accordingly, the eatable domestic animals were very commonly killed for offerings. Ancient writers supposed that pigs were the earliest victims. Bullocks and cows, sheep, especially lambs, and goats, were ordinarily offered by the Greeks and Eomans, by the Ethiopians, the Syrians, and Phoenicians, though the latter included game also, especially stags, geese, and other birds. But the practice was regulated by a consideration connected with the very root of paganism. In the Laws of the Twelve Tables, it is enjoined, "Such beasts should be used for victims as are be- coming and agreeable to each deity". Now every divinity represented, as a rule, a power or manifestation of nature ; the victim singled out was, there- fore, designed to possess a cosmic significance ; it bore a certain internal affinity to the deity itself — a point which will be more fully developed in its due place (Sect. XX). But the fluctuations involved iuthis doctrine are obvious. "What is the reason", exclaimed Arnobius, "that this God should be honoured by bullocks, another by goats or sheep? the one by sucking pigs, the other by unshorn lambs, some by sterile kine, and someby pre- gnant sows; the one by white, the other by black animals, one by female, and the other by male victims?" Were those animals more pleasing to a god which had been dedicated to him as sacred, or those which stood in no such relation? The customs followed in this respect differed even to direct opposition. The former principle was indeed most extensively adopted. The Greeks and Romans laid it down as a rule that every deity was to be honoured by its own favourite or kindred animals — the Olympians by refulgently white, the terrestrial, the marine, and lower gods by dark-coloured victims ; the former also by birds, the latter mainly by quadrupeds. The Greeks sacrificed, therefore, game of any kind and especially stags to Artemis ; swine, the emblem of fruitfulness, to Demeter; he-goats to Dionysos, notorious for amorous desires; cows to Latona; black cattle and sometimes horses to Poseidon; donkeys to Priapus; dogs to Hecate, — selections which a reference to the mythological character of the deities will render intelligible. In a similar manner, the Romans appeased Jupiter Capitolinus with white cattle except Ixills and rams; Apollo, Neptune, or Mars with bulls; Juno Calendaris witli a white cow, on account of her moon-shaped horns ; Mars also with wolves ; the virgin Minerva with an intact VII. ANIMALS AND VEGETABLES. 65 heifer; Venus with doves and sparrows, "the wanton birds"; while swine in general were immolated to all agrarian deities, and to Mars, Ceres, and Tellus, for confirming imprecations or ratifying treaties. But other nations followed the contrary law, and abstained from offer- ing to a deity the animals sacred to it. Thus the Egyptians never sacrificed cows, because holy to Isis, or rather to Athor, worshipped throughout the land as the primary principle of all things and the crea- tive power of nature. In the Thebais, they offered goats and no sheep, in Mendes sheep and no goats, because the sheep w^ere held sacred in the one district, and the goats in the other. They avoided the sacrifice of turtle-doves from a curious reason. The Syrians and Assyrians regarded the pigeon as so inviolable that even an accidental contact caused uncleanness for the day, because Semiramis was supposed to have finally been changed into that bird. But in order to force or to annoy an evil deity, sometimes animals were killed, that were consecrated to it. Thus in times of serious illness, great misfor- tune, or protracted drought, which they attributed to the malice of Typhon, the Egyptians furtively and silently took some of his holy animals to a dark place, and tried to intimidate them by threats; if the calamity did not abate, they slaughtered them as a punishment of the hated demon. At the interment of Apis, they threw some of Typhon's animals into the open grave, in order to vex him and to dimi- nish his exultation at the death of the sacred bull. In this manner, the strangest aberrations might arise; and not unfrequently the gravity of sacrificial rites was converted into futile play. When the animals deemed necessary for certain occasions could not be procured, various devices were resorted to. Sheep were sacrificed instead of stags, but were then named stags — an expedient similar to that adopted in the temple of Isis at Rome, where the priests used water of the Tiber instead of the Nile, but called it water of the Nile. In fact, the principle was set forth that, in sacrificing, the appearance is taken for the reality; accordingly, if animals were required which it was difficult to obtain, such as the Sibylline books occasionally ordered, images of them were made in bread or wax, and offered as substitutes. This was also fre- quently done by poor people, who presented figures of animals, whether baked of flour or imitated in wax. — Sometimes they offered even apples instead of sheep because in Greek their names are identical (jiTjXu) ! It w^ould be impossible to specify all the animals sacrificed in the heathen world; wherever they did not bear that cosmic relation to the gods which has above been alluded to, they represented either the 66 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. productions of the country or tlie wealth of the population generally. We must, therefore, restrict ourselves to a few instances. Among the Hindoos, the most solemn, or "the queen" of offerings, was the horse-sacrifice or Aswamcdha ; to the goddess Kali, the per- sonification of the destructive power of Shiva, and to the avenging demons Bhairawas they presented, besides bullocks and goats, stags, antelopes, and wild boars, also tortoises, ichneumons, and alligators, buffaloes and the rhinoceros, lions and tigers, and nine other species of wild beasts. — The Arabs offered also camels ; the Ethiopians gazelles and gryphs ; the Laplanders rein-deer. White horses were extensively killed to the Sun, because it was deemed appropriate to dedicate the swiftest animal to the swiftest god ; this was the custom of the Per- sians and the Ethiopians, of the Magi at the river Strymon, the Scy- thians, and the Massagetae. Northern tribes frequently slaughtered boars, the emblems of fruitfulness and generative power, especially in honour of those gods to whom the fructification of the soil was attri- buted, as to Freya in the beginning of February, to Freyr or Frikko, the god of the sun and of procreation, on the eve of the Jul festival in mid-winter, to whom nuptial sacrifices also were commonly offered. The Danes, on their great festival celebrated every 9 years, sacrificed horses, dogs, cocks, and hawks, besides men, 09 of each species: the number 9 so markedly prevailing in these arrangements, evidently points to generation and birth ; and the same characteristic is manifest in a corresponding festival of the Swedes, who every 9 years presented, as a great sin-offering, 9 men and 9 animals of every chief species. Birds were also frequently sacrificed — geese by the Egyptians, especi- ally to Isis, by the Phoenicians, the Greeks, and Romans ; cocks by the Chinese, and by the Egyptians to Anubis, guinea-fowls, and eagles frequently by the Roman emperors, whose grand sacrifice consisted of liecatombs of eagles, lions, and other rare animals. As regards the bloodless offerings of the pagans, there was scar- cely any vegetable production that was not presented on the altars either in its natural or in a prepared state. In some religious systeuis of western Asia, frank-incense was offered in vast profusion. The Babylonians, on the great annual festi- val of Bel, burnt not less than a thousand talents of the precious perfume, and the term "burning incense" became equivalent with sacrificing and worshipping generally. Several Greek tribes adopted a similar practice ; they brought offerings of fragrant wood, as of the cedar, the fig-tree, the vine, and the myrtle; and later, of frank- incense itself, which was generally laid on the altar in conjunction Vil. ANIMALS AND VEGETABLES. G7 with other gifts, but was occasionally oflfered alone, as on the feast of the Diasia, when it was burnt to Zens Meilichios; indeed, the frank- incense strewn on the victim was extensively supposed to be the most essential part of the animal sacrifice. The vegetable offerings of the Greeks were pre-eminently varied; they consisted of cakes, in honour of Apollo and other deities; dressed vegetables, as the pots of pulse with which altars and statues of in- ferior deities were consecrated; an olive or laurel branch enveloped in wool and hung round with various kinds of fruit, carried about by sing- ing boys on certain festivals, and then suspended at the house-door; gall, regarded as a symbol of life, in opposition to honey typifying spiritual death ; and many other oblations suggested by Greek inge- nuity and enthusiasm. The Romans presented at first only salted cakes, or other cakes with wine, to Janus or Jupiter; or wine alone, herbs, laurels, or violet- chaplets ; then myrrh, the aromatic branches of the zeodary (costum), frank-incense, whether alone or mixed with wine, to Janus, Jupiter, and Juno, the firstfruits of the crops, both in their natural state and pre- pared, and other vegetable productions, whether ready at hand or par- ticularly valued. But as a general rule, the pagans offered such oblations as were most palatable and savoury to themselves; so the Canaanites presented grape-cakes; the Aramaeans baked cakes; the negroes, besides coral- beads, cowries, and silver-money, also brandy or rum ; the American Indians tobacco; and theSamojedes employ greese, with which they be- smear the faces of their idols — a natural consequence of the anthropo- morphic character of their sacrifices. The ancient Hindoos devoted to the gods rice, and frequently clarified butter poured on fire. But their most general, as it was their earliest, offering consisted of the expressed and fermented, milky and subacid juice of the soma plant. The fluid was mixed with curds, barley flour, and a species of wild corn, and then presented in ladles to the deities invoked; a part of it was sprinkled on the fire, or on the ground, or on the sacred grass, which, after the roots had been cut off, was spread on the altar, or strewn over the floor of the chamber, or arranged as a seat for the deity invited to the sacrifice; the residue was then drunk by those who assisted in the sacred act. The soma was extolled, with enthusiastic. praise, in many works of Hindoo literature. It was called the grace of sacrifice, the exhilarator of mankind, on account of its narcotic properties, the noblest of the life-giving powers of nature; it was supposed to secure immortality, and to be the delight F 2 68 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. of tlie gods, especially of Indra, who achieves his deeds of glory when inspired by its powers. Gradually it was understood not merely as a drink, but as the god of drink, and was invested with the qualities of a supreme deity. However, it did not maintain its place among the Hindoos ; its sale and use were even considerably restricted by the laws of Manu. An old oblation of the Parsees was the miczd^ a mixture of meat, bread, and fruit, which was blessed and then eaten. But to the soma of the Hindoos corresponds the hom or hasma of the Parsees, the juice of that wonderful tree through which an evil demon sent by Ahriman seduced and ruined the first human couple. It was both their most important and most common sacrifice. The visions which it produced when tasted were regarded as prophetic. Thus Jmn became itself a genius or god, the sacrament of religion, the medium of divine reve- lation. He appeared to Zoroaster, whose father is, in the Zendavesta, represented as the most perfect of beings, and the first harbinger of the Law. He was worshipped already by the oldest fathers of the tribes and heroes, who were born by his'grace; for hom is the protector of houses, cities and countries; he removes death, imparts health and vigour, grants children and long life, secures victory over the hatred of evil spirits, awards a place among the saints, and leads the soul the way to heaven. But the sacrifices of the heathens, however multifarious and diver- sified never embraced metal or other lifeless objects; they consisted exclusively of vegetable productions, of beasts, or of men, that is, of gifts connected with the soul of the cosmos or the life of nature, to which the individual existence of the worshipper was given up ; they were thus rendered subordinate to the central idea of pagan theology ; and herein presented one of the most striking and most interesting diffe rences from the sacrifices of the Hebrews. i Vni. QUALIFICATION OF THE OFFERINGS. As the main object of sacrifices was to do homage to the Deity, whether by acknowledging His power, or thanking Him for His bounty, or imploring His forgiveness, the offerings were naturally required, from their value and condition, to be worthy of their important purpose. Hence the qualifications, too essential to be left to individual arbitra- riness, were strictly regulated by the Levitical law. The principles which, in this respect, guided the legislators, were mainly excellence and siynificance of the gift. This is manifest from a consideration of the particular attributes. VITI. QUALIFICATION OF THE OFFEEINOS. 69 A. The Animals were commanded to be 1 . Faultless or pcrfccl. The precepts on this point are distinct and explicit ; they are not only given in general terms, as, "Thou shalt not sacrifice to the Lord thy God any bullock or sheep, wherein is blemish or any defect;"' or, "If the beast has any blemish, as if it is lame or blind, thou shalt not sacrifice it to the Lord thy God;"^ but the disqualifying faults are elaborately specified, "Whosoever will offer a sacrifice to the Lord for a burnt-offering, shall offer it for your accep- tance, a male without blemish; .. . but whatsoever has a blemish, that you shall not offer; for it shall not be acceptable for you. And who- soever will offer a thank-offering to the Lord ... it shall be perfect to be accepted; it shall have no blemish: animals that are blind, (^r broken, or maimed, or ulcerous, or scurvy, or scabbed, you shall not offer to the Lord . . . You shall not offer to the Lord animals that are bruised, or crushed, or broken, or castrated; you shall not offer the food of your God of any of these ; . . . because their corruption is in them, and blemishes are in them; they shall not be accepted for you."^ This law is specially enjoined with regard to burnt-,'' thank-, ^ and expiatory offerings,^ and to the paschal lamb.'' Its rigour is somewhat relaxed in one single case. A bullock and a lamb with limbs either too short or too long were lawful for thank-offerings presented as free-will gifts, though not as vows : but animals of that description are not properly disfigured by a defect, but are merely abnormal in the proportion of their members; their flesh is not necessarily inferior; they could, therefore, be deemed acceptable for sacrifices offered from spontaneous impulse, without a positive religious obligation. To devote faulty animals was regarded as an abomination to the Lord,^ a cri- minal desecration of the Divine name, and a pollution of the Temple and the altar. ^ It was certain to cause the rejection of the worshipper and his gift. ' " For man who owes all to God, ought, when he approaches His Sanctuary with new supplications, to dedicate to Him what is best and choicest, and to present to Him who is perfect only perfect oblations ; "lest the things consecrated to the most High appear contemptible, and His worship be degraded." But that law of fault-^ lessness is hardly intended as a symbol of the offerer's perfection, or of his required freedom fr6m all failings and diseases of the soul whenever he enters the Temple ; it refers exclusively to the sacrifice which was t Deut. XVIlTT. 2 Dcut. XvTiL M^III. 1, G; XXII. 21. 3 Lev. XXn. 18—25; see Comm. in 6 Lev. IV. 3, 23, 28, 32; V. 15, 18, loc. Jewish tradition counts 50 difTerent 25 ; IX. 2, 3; XIV. 10. defects. 7 Exod. XII. 5. 8 Deut.'XVll. 1. * Lev. I. 3, 10; IX. 2, 3; XXIII. 18. « Mai. I. 6, 7. lo Mai. I. 8, 9, 13. 70 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. to be worthy of God, the lioly One ; much less cau it be regarded typically to point to the unblemished purity of Christ. Hence the greatest care was bestowed on the selection of the vic- tim. According to Jewish tradition, it was, before being admitted to the altar, examined from head to foot by experienced officials. Among the Egyptians, a chief section of the priests had the duty to mark the beasts which, on the closest inspection, had been declared fit for sacri- fice, by tying a piece of papyrus round the horns, and stamping it with a signet-ring on sealing-clay: whoever offered an animal not sanctioned in this manner suffered death. In fact, the Egyptians sacrificed only "such bulls and calves as were pure" or perfect. Among the Greeks, the same rule was observed with conscientious strictness. They fixed as indispensable a considerable number of qualities; the victims were required to be "perfect, faultless, sound, healthy, unmaimed, complete and strong in limbs, unhurt, not deformed, not without horns, and not crippled". Indeed, they established the comprehensive law, "The vic- tim must be pure in body and life, and uninjured and uncorrupted"; or, "In general, whatever is not perfect and sound, must not be sacrificed to the gods." Nor were the Romans less scrupulous on this point. They were careful to offer "select" animals, which designation was explained to mean perfect and faultless. On the Phoenician tablet of Marseilles, the attribute "perfect" is almost invariably used in connection with the purification- and thank-offerings. Indeed, all nations acted upon the same view which naturally suggests itself. The Eretrians alone, by a strange fancy, sacrificed to Artemis in their town Amarynthus maimed victims. 2. For most occasions, the animal was ordered to be male. This was pre-eminently the case with regard to the more important classes of sacrifice — for the burnt-offerings, the paschal lamb, the principal expiatory offerings, and aU sacrifices of whatever description presented in the name of the whole people. In other instances, a female victim was demanded, as for the sin-offering of the common Israelite. In others again, either a male or a female was permitted, as for private thank-offerings and firstlings. For pigeons and turtle-doves no parti- cular sex was prescribed in the Law. It was very generally supposed that the male is superior to the female. The sin-offering of a chief was a kid of the goats, that of a common Israelite a female of the same species or a female lamb. Human sacrifices, the choicest of all offerings, consisted of males exclusively. It was regarded as base deceitfulness, sure of Divine punishment, if a man possessed a male animal, and yet vowed or sacrificed a female one. We may thus understand the subtlety VIII. QUALIFICATION OF THE OFFERINGS. 71 with which Philo refined the current notions. "A male", he ohservod, "is both more lordly than a female and more perfect, and more nearly related to the efficient cause ; while tlie female is imperfect, sub- ordinate, and more fit to be passive than active; so that the rational part of our soul, as intellect and reason, belongs to the male, the irrational part, as the outward senses, to the female sex." Nor can we be surprised to find similar views prevailing among other nations also. In the temple of Venus at Paphos, victims of whatever species were allowed, provided they were males. The sacrificial animals of the Hindoo divinities Kali and the Bhairawas were exclusively males. The Egyptians universally sacrificed male kine and male calves, but never the females, which were sacred to Isis, or rather to Athor; and cows especially were more venerated than any other animal. Though the Mendesians paid reverence to all goats, they honoured the males more than the females; they esteemed the goatherds who tended the former more highly; and when one particular he-goat died, public mourning was observed throughout the district. But another consideration, foreign and even antagonistic to motives of religion, frequently deter- mined the choice. The killing of certain beasts was prohibited, when it would have been detrimental to the increase or quality of the species, or when they were too highly prized to be spared for offerings. The Egyptians and Phoenicians regarded it as a detestable crime to sacri- fice or to consume female cattle; "they would sooner have eaten human than cow's flesh"; for the female animals, being more valuable, had become extremely scarce among them, and were to be left untouched for the sake of their breeding. The Arabs released from labour any she- camel that had successively brought forth ten females; she was declared at liberty and hence called sayiba, the free one ; she could not be used for riding or for carrying burdens ; her hair was not allowed to be cut, and her milk was reserved for her young ones and for guests only: if, in this state of privileged exemption, she gave birth to another female, the latter enjoyed the same distinctions. The Egyptian priests pronounced some of the most useful animals as sacred, ostensibly from some mysterious cause, but really in order to guard against a diminution of their breed: so in theThebaid, mutton, although the most wholesome meat in Egypt, was interdicted at a time when sheep were rare. It was an old custom among the Athenians, for the sake of the produce of the flocks, never to slay a sheep which had not been shorn, or which had not brought forth any young; the priests of Minerva never, up to a late period, sacrificed a lamb. The Libyans and the Derbices in Mount Caucasus prohibited by law the killing of cows. From this point of view, two opposite 72; A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. practices will easily be accounted for. On the one hand, the tribes of ancient Italy laid down the rule, that for all kinds of sacrifices the females are more valuable than the males; and therefore, when desi- rous to evince special gratitude to the gods, and to present a parti- cularly acceptable offering, they sacrificed' a female animal. On the other hand, the Athenians on one occasion passed a decree that no oxen should be killed on account of their scarcity. The Scythians and Phrygians punished with death any one who killed a ploughing ox. The ancient Romans valued the oxen so much as "their com- panions in labour", that they long abstained from slaying them for food; and it is related by various writers, that a man was publicly con- demned to exile, because he had killed a working ox for that purpose, which act was deemed scarcely less criminal "as if he had assassinated one of his peasants"; for the slaughter of oxen was regarded as an iniquity which began to prevail only after the disappearance of the golden age. Some nations offered male and female animals indiscrimi- nately; thus the Ethiopians killed to Helios a male, to Selene a female victim ; the Scythians a female lamb to Hecate ; the Greeks and Romans generally observed the characteristic rule, unless modified by other considerations, that the sex of the victim should correspond with the sex of the deity to which it was sacrificed. The same principle partially prevailed among northern tribes, as the Laplanders, who sacrificed male reindeer to the gods Tiermes and Storjunkare, and females to the goddess Baiwe, the three deities just named forming a northern trinity representing the powers of creation, preservation, and destruction, in a manner so perfectly analogous to the Hindoo trimurtis that even the colours particular to each divinity, red, white, and black, are those of Brahmah, Vishnu, and Shiva respectively ; while the only difference is this that, in the northern mythology, a god not inappro- priately corresponds with the Hindoo goddess of destruction, Shiva. 3. As regards the age of victims, it was ordained that none should be offered earlier than the seventh day from their birth ;^ till then, they were not only regarded as unclean, but as too weak and imperfect to represent their species, and to guarantee a well-secured existence. The only restriction enjoined in this respect was, that the young animal and its mother should not be killed on the same day,^ a law supposed to have been suggested by reasons of humanity, "for it is the excess of barbarity, to destroy in one day the offspring and her who is the cause of its birth; it is slaughter rather than sacrifice"; and from similar motives, pregnant animals seem to have been excluded from 1 Lev. XXII. 27; comp. Exod. XXII. 29. 2 Lev. XXII. 28. VIII. QUALIFICATION OF THE OFFERINGS. 73 the altar; "for the animals which are still in the womb, are looked upon as equal to those that have just been bom." The firstborn male animals were to be killed within the first year.^ Burnt-,'' sin-,^ thank-, and praise-offerings^ were required to be above one year, and so consequently also the paschal lamb.'' It is in harmony with the spirit of the sacrificial laws of the Pentateuch to suppose that the victims were not to be too old; for "in an advanced age, the animal is not per- fect in its nature", and ought, therefore, if possible, "not to be pre- sented to God, on account of His exalted glory." For turtle-doves and young pigeons no age was prescribed in the Pentateuch. The practices of other nations were diversified. The Babylonians presented on one of the altars of Bel sucklings only, on another full- grown animals. The early Greeks killed bullocks and pigs five years old, and more frequently bullocks and cows of one year; later, it is recorded that cows and sheep were sacrificed after they had changed their teeth, and pigs, if less than 15 months old; while Pallas was honoured with calves two years and cows three years old. In some instances indeed new-born pigs were offered to the lower gods, or new-born calves to Dionysos; and for purification-offerings sucking pigs were generally chosen: yet as a rule, a certain maturity of age was deemed essential for victims. The Eomans did not admit the young pigs before they were five days, lambs and kids seven days, and calves one month, though some authorities fixed the age of young pigs at ten days ; but they particularly preferred for sacrifices animals that had the two rows of teeth complete, and were therefore strongest and most perfect. In fact, some considered them absolutely unfit before that time. 4. On some occasions, an animal was demanded that had done no work, and had drawn no yoke. This was the case with regard to the "red cow" killed and burnt for purposes of purification, and the heifer slain at the rite of expiation for a murder not traceable to the perpetrator:^ though both were not sacrifices in the proper sense, it was deemed becoming that animals employed for symbolical acts of such solemnity, should not have served any worldly end, but that their full strength and value should be given up to the sacred ceremonials. To enjoin such a qualillcation for all sacrifices, would have been an im- possibility, and would have encumbered the sacrificial legislation with 3 Deut. XV. 19, 20. 6 Num. VII. 17, 23, 29 etc.; Lev. * Exod. XXIX. 38; Lev. IX. 3; XII. XXIII. 19. ^ 6; XXIII. 12; Num. XXVIII. 3, 9, 11, ^ Exod. XII. 5. 19, 27. 5 Lev. XIV. 10; Num. 8 Num. XIX. 1—10; Deut. XXI. 3, 4. yi. 12, 14; XV. 27. 74 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. a new and insuperable difficulty. It is well-known that other nations frequently adhered to a similar practice. Diomedes promised to offer to Athene a bullock "untamed, never yet led under the yoke." The Romans sacrificed to the gods "untouched" or "yokeless" beasts; and sheep that had not been shorn. But these instances refer mainly to occasions of peculiar importance or interest. 5. It needs scarcely to be observed that the offering was required to be the lawful and exclumic propcrtu of the worshipper — a con- sideration which prompted the appointment of clean domcslic animals for sacrifices. To offer the property of others has justly been described as a preposterous contradiction in terms. When David intended to sacrifice on the threshingfloor of Araunah, and the latter offered to him the victim and the wood as a present, he declined in the words, "Nay, I will surely buy it of thee at a price ; and I will not offer burnt-offerings to the Lord my God of that which costs me nothing"; ' and the Levi- tical law declares it to be "an abomination to the Lord", if a man offers for a vow "the gain of unchastity or the price of a dog."- In the distressed periods after the exile, the impoverished people presented indeed on the altar the offerings supplied to them by foreign kings ;^ but they had, in that exceptional condition, no alternative but to neglect the public worship or to defray its expenses from presents of strangers; and they provided the necessary means as soon as their circumstances at all improved. ^ 6. So far the customs of the Hebrews with regard to the qualifi- cation of victims nearly coincided with those of other nations. But the latter did not stop there; they were, by the nature of their religious systems, almost inevitably led to complicated or artificial and often whimsical rules. Some attached a mystical importance to the colours. Black was the emblem of grief and misfortune, white of joy and life. Saturn, conceived as "the great calamity", was worshipped in a Mack hexagonal temple by black-robed priests; Mars, the blood- stained, or "the minor calamity", in a red temple, in blood-sprinkled garments. It is still customary in the East for a chief or prince, when he replies in state to important petitions, to appear on a black horse if he refuses, on a grey one if he leaves the matter undecided or delays the decision, and on one of spotless white if he consents.^ 12 Sam. XXIV. 24. 2 Deut.XXIII. 19. Montefiore interceded for his co-reH- 3 Ezra VI. 9; VII. 17, 22; 1 Mace. g-iouisls with the emperor of Morocco, X. 39; 2 Mace. III. 3; IX. 16; Jos. A. this prince appeared, in the court-yard Xn. iii. 3. 4 Nchcm. X. 33 — 35. of his palace, on a white steed, and s So when, in thebeg-inning-of 1864, immediately issued decrees g-uaranting the venerable and benevolent SirMoses the protection and security of the Jews. YITT. QUALIFICATION OF THE OFFERINGS. 75 Thus the Greeks and Komaiis considered black cattle necessary for the gods of the nether world and for Poseidon, but 7vhitc cattle for the heavenly deities, though they conciliated Poseidon also by reddish or even white "animals. They used for offerings of expiation black cattle which was meant to typify guilt; and such they presented at Athens to the Tempests and Hurricanes. Jupiter Capitolinus was, in Rome, to be honoured with a white bullock; but as a beast perfectly of that colour is rarely found, the unfavourable spots were generally whitened with chalk. The Egyptians sacrificed to Osiris reddish oxen, because that colour was attributed to Typhon, his enemy and persecutor; so scrupulous were they on this point that a single black hair disqualified the animal. A remnant of this conception was preserved among the Heb- rews in the ordinance of the "red cow."^ In China, the victims presented at the four great annual sacrifices differed in colour according to the four seasons, at the beginning of which the festivals were celebrated. The northern and Germanic tribes chose a red, white, or black victim, to correspond with the deity to which it was offered. The boar sacri- ficed at the beginning of February to Freya, to pray for abundance of corn, was yellow, the colour of the golden ears. 7. We have above alluded to the cosmic nature of the Greek and Roman gods and of their sacrifices ; that character appears nowhere more strikingly than in the laws as. to the qualification of victims. The deities were viewed in their supposed relations to productiveness and fertility. Therefore, Proserpine, the symbol of decaying and sterile nature, was honoured by barren, Ceres, the goddess of harvest, by pregnant cows, or by pigs, the types of extraordinary frnitfulness. Such sacrifices were offered especially in spring, when the seed had just been entrusted to the earth; they formed, therefore, a chief feature of the Roman festival of the Fordicidia, which was celebrated, in honour of Tellus, in the middle of April. The manes of the departed were also propitiated by a barren cow. But occasionally this principle, intelligible as it is from a certain point of view, could not be carried out with consistency on account of the contradictory attributes of the pagan gods; thus the Eumenidae received, at Sicyon, the offering of pregnant sheep, because they were believed not only to spread blast and destruction among the crops, but also to protect and to bless them, and to grant offspring and domestic concord. Other regulations were futile or ludicrous. Importance was attached to the condition of the tail. The Greeks considered a pig unfit for sacrifice, unless the tail was complete. The Romans excluded the 6 Num.XIX. 1— 10. 76 A. THE PEINCIPAL SACRIFICES. calf from the altar, unless its tail readied to the pastern joint, since the tail, small at the birth of the calf, grows gradually larger, till the beast arrives at maturity; or unless the tail was rounded off at the end, the tongue not cloven, and the ear not black. They disqualified calves whicli had been carried to the altar on men's shoulders, or struggled to get away from the altar, on which latter point more will be said in the proper place. Some tribes sacrificed to Mars asses distinguished by stentorian loudness of voice. B. Tlie materials of bloodless sacrifices were prescribed to possess the following qualifications. 1. The ears of corn, presented as a first-fruit offering,' were to be of the earlier and superior sort, carefully cultivated as if in a garden, and the grains were to be rubbed or beaten out. 2. The flour was ordinarily to be of the finest or best quality, in contradistinction to the coarser sort, and from the choicest species of grain, rvheat. However, the offering presented for the wife suspected of faithlessness, consisted of the common flour of the less valuable grain of barley. 3. The flour, of which never less than an omer or a tenth of an ephah was used for an offering, because this quantity was, as a rule, deemed sufficient for one person's daily sustenance, after having been mixed with water and converted into dough, was either leavened, or remained more generally unleavened. It was baked either into loaves, into thin cakes or wafers, or into thick calces pierced with little holes: the thickness is supposed never to have exceeded one finger; and the holes were produced by the small and smooth flints, with which the pot or pitcher used for preparing the cakes was half filled, and over which the dough was spread ; such holes are still made in the unleavened cakes of the Arabs and the passover-cakes of the Jews, though in the latter, of course, not in the primitive way just described. Both the thick and the thin cakes] are believed to have been round in form. 4. The oil employed for the bloodless offerings, was to be the white olive-oil obtained from the green, unripe berries squeezed or beaten in a mortar ; not that inferior though more abundant kind gained from the ripe olives trodden out with the feet or thrown into oil-presses or oil-mills; much less the very valueless and unsavoury oils extensively used in the East. It was to be pure, that is, not mixed with any other fluid. Now this oil was used in different ways. It was often simply 1 Lev. II. 14. VIII. QUALIFICATION OF THE OFFEI^INGS. 77 poured over the offering, whether over the plain flour, or over the pieces into which the oblation was divided, or over the roasted ears of corn presented as firstfruits. The thicker cakes, that is, the flour of which they were prepared, were ininglcd with oil ; the thinner cakes, after having been baked, were anohitcd, that is, brushed over with it, according to Jewish tradition in the form of the Greek letter X. In a few cases, the offering was soaked in oil and almost saturated with it; this was the case with the oblation which both the com- mon and the High-priests presented on the day of their consecra- tion; and with the flour which formed a part of the cereal accompani- ment of the praise-offering. It is evident, that the ampler or scantier use of the oil stood in significant relation to the nature of the offering, and harmonised with the symbolical attributes of the oil. 5. The frank-incense, largely imported into Palestine from Ara- bia Felix, especially from Sheba, and obtained from a thorny shrub, Amyris kataf or Juniperus tlmrifera, growing on mountainous tracts, with leaves and fruit resembling those of the myrtle, was ordered to be pure^ which epithet probably refers to the white and superior frank-incense, procured by incisions in the bark of the plant in the beginning of autumn ; while the reddish kind gathered in the winter, is of much meaner quality. The quantity required for each offering is not fixed in the Pentateuch, and was probably left to the piety and capability of the worshipper. — While frank-incense was, by the Israe- lites, presented only as an accompaniment of other oblations, it was by several Greek and many middle Asiatic tribes presented alone and often in copious abundance (p. 6G). 6. The wine ordained for libations is in no manner described or qualified. Hence, probably, the ordinary or red wine was understood, especially as it easily admitted of a welcome symbolical meaning, and the fine red colour of the wine was admired and extolled. 7. Once another fluid — shechar — is mentioned as a libation ;- it is probably some strong or intoxicating liquor, resembling wine in its nature and effects, though distinct from it, and hence, like wine, interdicted to priests during their sacred functions, to Nazarites, and other persons of peculiar sanctity. The Arabs designate by the same name wine made from dry grapes or dates. 8. Nor is the salt, which was to be used not only with the bloodless, but with all sacrifices generally,-'' described in any way. It is well known that the Dead Sea is strongly impregnated with salt which is partly brought thither from the salt-mountain (Usdum) on the 2 Num. XXVIII. 7. 3 Lev. II. 13; see p. 63. 78 A. THfi I>R1NC1PAL SACRIFICES. southwestern shores, and partly, especially in the northern regions, deposited at the bottom of the lake itself; so that the mineral covers, by exhalation, the surrounding trees with a thick crust, sometimes imparts to the whole neighbourhood the appearance of a snowy plain; and is, after the annual inundations, plentifully found in the marshes and pits abounding in the vicinity. It was hence called Sodomiiic salt. It was most probably this species which the Hebrews employed for sacred purposes. Large quantities of it were kept in the second Temple, in a room specially set apart for the stores; and Antiochus the Great sent to the Jews, among other gifts, 375 medimni of salt for use at the sacrifices. In default of Sodomitic salt the Hebrews availed themselves of that of Ostracine, a town near Pelusium or Ehinocolura and the lake Sirbonis, where salt was dug out of the earth "like blocks from a quarry." y. Leaven and honey, though generally banished from the altar, were admitted in a few exceptional cases : the former for the first new bread offered on Pentecost, and for every praise-offering, when the bread and the cakes were to be leavened; the latter, if presented as a firstfruit-offering. The reason for these concessions will be pointed out in the following section of this treatise (IX. 9, 10). Leaven was, in the earliest times, prepared from millet, or fine wheat-bran, kneaded with must ; or from the meal of various plants, as the fitch {crviun) and the chicheling vetch {occcrcula) ; or from barley and water baked in cakes upon a hot hearth or in an earthen dish placed upon hot ashes and charcoals, after which the cakes were kept close in vessels till they turned sour. In later periods, it was made chiefly from the bread-flour without salt, kneaded, and then either boiled to the consistency of porridge and left till it became sour, or simply allowed to stand for a few days. Among the Hebrews, this last method seems to have been most common, but they employed for fer- mentation must or wine-lees also. 1 0. But we confess our inability to determine the sort of honey understood by the Hebrew law — whether it was the bee-honey, so plentiful in Palestine; or, as is less probable, the grape-honey, or dibs of the Orientals, which is prepared from must boiled down to one third or one half; or whether it was the date-honey; or fruit- honey generally. Theophrastus, however, who erroneously represents the Hebrews as having used much honey in their libations offered with the holocausts, was, no doubt, like those whom he followed, misled by the usage extensively prevailing among other nations, as the Per- sians and Eleans, who offered, especially to the gods of the lower world IX. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF SALT. 79 and at the sacrifices for the dead, either honey alone, or mixed with the holy cakes, or spread on fruits, whence honey was called the "sweet food of the gods", which they eagerly desire. IX. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF OBJECTS CONNECTED WITH SACRIFICES. The sacrificial rites and observances cannot be meaningless and hazardous. They were evidently devised to facilitate the ends which they w^ere intended to serve. They must be understood as instrumental either in restoring or in testifying to the peace of mind and its harmony with God. They are, therefore, visible embodiments of spiritual ideas — they bear a symbolical character. However, the slaughtering of animals and the offering of gifts unavoidably involve certain require- ments and acts, without which they cannot be accomplished. Though, therefore, some of the ceremonies have a spiritual meaning, others cannot, without unprofitable playfulness, be interpreted symbolically: a correct appreciation of the nature of the Law will aid the judgment in fixing the distinction. We begin with the sacrificial objects which seem to imply a symbolical meaning; after which we shall attempt to- explain the ads which belong to the same category. 1. Salt. Salt was indeed, in primitive sacrifices, probably employed merely because it formed an indispensable ingredient in all human food. But when religious education advanced beyond the anthropopathic stage, this seasoning, though still deemed necessary in every sacrifice, was invested with a symbolical meaning. Its significance cannot be mis- taken, it was accepted not only by the eastern but the classical nations, and passed, in many languages, into a standing and prover- bial metaphor. Enjoined, in the Levitical law, immediately after the prohibition of leaven and honey (II. 1 3), salt was evidently regarded to be exactly opposed to them in its nature; and as leaven and honey were repudiated because they recall the notions of corruption, decay, and impurity, salt was prescribed, because it implies the ideas of pre- servation and life, of vigour and permanence, of purity and holiness. It was, therefore, connected with the very essence of sacrifices; it typi- fied that for which all offerings were mainly presented. Starting from the observation that salt shields many objects from decomposition and putrescence, the early and imaginative generations, following their symbolising propensities, employed it in sealing relations which they desired to be binding and enduring. They used it particularly in con- aO • A. THE PmNClt^AL SACtllFlCES. eluding friendships and treaties. This custom prevailed among tho Greeks who hence designated the salt as holy, and it still obtains among the Arabs. Dipping a piece of bread in salt, each of the contract- ing parties exclaims, "Salam (Peace)! I am the friend of your friends, and the foe of your foes." Solemn affirmations are corroborated by invoking the sacreduess of salt, and may then more surely be relied upon than upon an oath. A place where salt is found is deemed in- violable. The Hebrews described an eternal and indissoluble alliance as a sall-covcuant. Now, as the sacrifices were designed to effect an intimate and perpetual unity between God and man, they were to be offered with salt; and this was hence called "the salt of the covenant of God." Thus salt was undoubtedly prescribed not for bloodless oblations alone, but for every kind of animal sacrifice ; and this is confirmed by later allusions and express statements ; and according to tradition, it was to be used with the shew-bread also, and even with the oil and frank-incense ; in fact, with all substances connected with sacrifices, except the wine, the blood, and the wood. It may hence be explained why salt was cast into springs of unwholesome water for the purpose of improving it. This act may indeed have had a natural and physical foundation, since some substances, among which was probably salt, were believed to possess the power of cor- recting distasteful qualities of the water: but it recommended itself chiefly on account of the symbolical significance of preservation and healing attributed to salt ; and therefore the narratives which relate such changes in the nature of the water bear a miraculous character. Again, as decay is associated with the ideas of death and impurity, salt, which prevents or counteracts decay, became the type of life and purity, the more so as it was believed "to be itself composed of tho purest particles of water and sea" ; it could be used for a metaphor like this, "have salt in yourselves", meaning benevolence, righteous- ness and good-will, and a peaceful communion with your fellow-men; and thus we may understand the pithy expression, "every man shall be salted with fire", that is shall be purified, since the same power was attributed to the salt as to the fire, which is pre-eminently the puri- fying element. These Biblical notions were gradually extended and amplified, in which jjrocess they not always retained their original simplicity. Philo, correctly describing salt to imply a duration for ever concludes, in his accustomed manner of spiritualisation, that it is second in rank only to the soul, "for as the soul is the cause of preserving the bodies from destruction, so likewise is salt, which best keeps them together, and I IX. ]. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF SALT. 81 to some extent makes them immortal." Therefore Philo compares it to the altar, "which preserves the sacrifices in a proper manner, and this too, though the flesh is consumed by fire." Christian mystics understood the salt to symbolise Christ preserving from corrup- tion the soul by his doctrine, and the body by the promised resur- rection ; or they compared it to the Wurd of (.'od which strengthens and purifies. More commonly accepted, however, was the following view. Unity with God is not possible, unless the heart be pure. But the heart can only remain so by steeling itself against temptation. Hence the "salt of the covenant" was regarded to typify wisdom which discerns sinful inclinations, and fortitude which conquers them ; it was taken to intimate that untruth und hypocrisy, envy and malice, and all evil passions that corrupt and taint the health of the mind, render the offering unavailing in the eyes of God ; and it was invested with the power of converting the sacrifice into a perpetual bond with God under the condition only that it reminded the worshipper himself of his moral obligations and religious aims. Salt thus obtained a twofold significance and holiness. In this sense, Pythagoras commended that salt ought to be set before people as an admonition to justice. But it could thus also be used as a synonym for wisdom and penetration, judgment and intelligence. "Let your speech", wrote Paul to the Colos- sians, "be always with grace, seasoned with salt that you may know how you ought to answer every man." The apostles were called "the salt of the earth", that is, those who by teaching and guiding the world, guard it from degeneration and moral decay; so that, in that phrase, the term salt implies both the original and the collateral sense. The Greeks employed the word salt for wit or sarcasm. The Romans, on the testimony of Pliny, had no better term to express "the pleasures of the mind, the effusions of humour, and in fact all the amenities of life, supreme cheerfulness, and relaxation from toil", or intellectual acuteness, good sense and shrewdness. The Greeks and Romans shared indeed, on the whole, the Hebrew notions with regard to the use of salt at the sacred rites. They maintained the principle that * no sacrifice ought to be offered unless accompanied by salted grits. They even ascribed to the salt divine attributes, because they believed it conduces to generation ; and as the marine animals are the most fruitful of all, cattle that were to be incited to breeding were fed with salt-beef and other salted food. Among the Romans, the salt- cellar, the symbol of food and sustenance, was held in equal honour with the lares, and placed in the middle of the table at all meals, which thereby received the character of sacrifices; it formed an heirloom 82 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. in the family, was preserved with the utmost care, and kept with scrupulous neatness. The sumptuary laws which restricted the use of all articles of luxury, permitted a bowl [patera) and salt-cellar of silver; the latter was, especially for the sacrificial service, made in the most elegant and costly manner possible, and wa« even in the earliest times of severe simplicity, of precious metal, chiefly of silver. The Greeks called the salt "grace", "because it makes the food palatable that is necessary for life"; therefore they often worshipped Poseidon and Demeter in the same temple. They maintained that as all colours need light, so all fluids require salt to have an effect upon our sensation; that all meat is dead; and that the power of salt which joins it like a soul, imparts to it "grace" and a pleasant taste. If in the East, persons eat together bread and salt, they are most solemnly pledged to mutual friendship which it is considered the height of impious- ness to betray ; their persons and their property, their safety and their honour, become objects of each other's sacred solicitude. The Egyptian priests alone, if they did not entirely abstain from salt, excluded it from their meals during the time of their purification, because they thought it whets the appetite beyond the natural neces- sities. But they were apparently singular in this view ; and even they distinguished between pure and impure salt, the former salpetre or nitre, the latter marine salt, which was forbidden at sacrifices. Yet the Hebrews observed the peculiar custom of scattering salt over places destined for perpetual desolation, such as destroyed cities which were never to be rebuilt. This practice probably originated in the noticed fact that tracts containing salt are remarkable for sterility and unpro- ductiveness, and this opinion was naturally strengthened, in Palestine, by the aspect of the dreary regions round the Dead Sea, where the vegetation is scanty and stunted, and where the salt accumulates in cheerless pits and marshes. 2. Oil. Men were easily taught by experience to appreciate the valuable properties of oil. They found that it stimulates the vital powers of the healthy, revives the languishing energy of the feeble, and checks even the incipient decomposition of the dead. Oil was, therefore, from primitive ages, employed as a means for refreshing the body; as a restorative remedy in cases of illness, especially for wounds ; and as a chief ingredient for embalming corpses. It was used as a sym- bol and accompaniment of joy, especially at festive repasts ; it was resorted to when persons prepared to appear before superiors, or when IX. 2. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF OIL. 83 they rose from their ordinary life to proceed to some higher and more solemn function ; while it was avoided in times of grief and mourn- ing, and even of solemnity, as on the Day of Atonement. It was thus naturally chosen to typify life, the more so as life and light appeared to be kindred qualities, and were more completely than in any other fluid or substance found united in oil, one of the choicest and richest products of the promised land. Hence oil was exten- sively regarded as an emblem of the spirit of God, of intelligent and godlike reason, of the higher and rational life of man. Anointing became synonymous with imparting the Divine spirit, which is the source of life and light in the ideal world, as oil in the world of matter. Now, the worship of God, and especially its centre, the sacrificial ser- vice, aims at the diffusion of the light of the mind and the life of the soul, of truth and righteousness, of wisdom and peace, of the know- ledge of the Law and its exercise, of wisdom and happiness ; in a word it tends to holiness^ God's most comprehensive attribute and Israel's ultimate goal ; it is intended to rouse the Divine or holy spirit. Therefore oil was also termed "the oil of holiness", or "the oil of holy ointment"; anointing was equivalent to bestowing holiness or sancti- fying, and this again coincided with consecrating or installing in the priestly office to serve before the Lord : these three notions were coupled in the command, "And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and hallow them, to serve Me as priests." ^ Therefore, oil accompanied most of the bloodless offerings,'- whether the flour and cakes were mixed, poured over, anointed, or soaked with it (p. 77); and it marked them as consecrated to God. It was employed, with peculiar abundance, in the bloodless offering presented by the High-priest on the day of his consecration. It was used to set apart objects for religious pur- poses, or to appoint persons for sacred service. Thus the Hebrews anointed with oil memorial-stones or hetylia ; the Tabernacle with all its vessels, and particularly the altar, the instrument of atone- ment; the priests, the mediators between God and the people, and more especially the High-priest, who was "the anointed priest" jyar exccllcjicc, and was himself termed "the holy one of the Lord"; the prophets, the interpreters of God's will ; and the kings, the earthly representatives of the Divine ruler. But oil was excluded, like frank-incense, from the sin-offering and the offering of jea- lousy. Its symbolical significance in the ordinances of the minchah seems to be indisputably established by these two exceptions, which ^ Exod.XXX. .30; comp.XXVIlI.41 ; 2 Comp. Lev. II. 1, 4, 7, 15; VI. 8; XL 13. VII. 12; etc. G 2 84 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. prove that the oil did not form, as has been supposed, a chief part of the oblation itself, like the flour, but that it was a characteristic addition, like the frank-incense — a circumstance rendered indubit- able by the plain text, "And when any one will offer a bloodless offer- ing to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour, and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frank-incense thereon." ^ The same conclusion is confirmed by the ordinance which fixes the relative quantity of flour, oil, and wine to be used for a minchah and its accompanying drink- offering. As oil is never consumed alone, like wine or bread, but toge- ther with other products or preparations, which it is meant to make more savoury, especially in the East, where it is a frequent substitute for fat and butter, so it is never mentioned as an independent gift, like the wine, but appears mingled or otherwise combined with the flour or the pastry. The oil used for ordinary consumption and that employed for an- ointing, were probably identical in early times. But the Levitical law deemed it desirable to distinguish the latter, especially in the conse- cration of the Sanctuary and its ministers, by the admixture of four sweet-smelling ingredients, myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, and cassia; because four was regarded as the number of perfection and totality; it indicated, on the one hand, that the sacred anointment should compre- hend the entire wealth of fragrance which pervades the vegetable king- dom; and on the other hand, that the holiness of those for whom it was intended, should be absolute and perfect; hence the imitation of the compound and its use for profane purposes were threatened with excision, since God's holiness could manifest itself in His Sanctuary and in His servants only.^ 3. Wine. The application of wine in connection with offerings is too natural to demand any figurative interpretation. The wine "gladdens God and man" — reason enough why it was deemed pre-eminently fit for the altar. But it is not impossible that the symbolising spirit of the an- cients endowed it with a peculiar significance. Red wine was generally employed to recall the colour and nature of blood. The wine offered with the vegetable oblations represented the blood of animal sacrifices. The High-priest is declared to have poured out, as a libation, "the blood of the grape"; the same metaphor occurs repeatedly in the Hebrew Scriptures;^ and the Romans mixed blood of the victim with red wine to express the kindred meaning of both. 1 Lev. II. 1 ; comp. ver. 15. 3 See Gen. XLIX. 1 1 ; Deut. XXXII. 2 Exod. XXX. 23, 24; compare Com- 14; compare 1 Mace. VI. 34; Sir. mentary on Exodus, pp. 427—430. XXXIX. 26. IX. 4. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF FRANK-INCENSE. 85 4. Frank-incense. The frank-incense was no doubt orig-inally chosen for sacrifices on account of its fragrance, which was supposed tu be pleasing- to the gods. It was, therefore, employed among mpst of the ancient nations whenever they were able to procure it; and in some religions of middle and western Asia, it rose lavishly on the altars, and formed the chief offering (p. 66). It was burnt either as an independent oblation or as an accompaniment of other gifts ; and it was deemed especially desirable in conjunction with animal sacrifices, to counteract the ill- odour inseparable from the total or partial burning of the victims. In their earliest stages, the Israelites naturally shared these anthropo- morphic views, of which a trace is left in the Hebrew phrase "a sweet odour to the Lord." However, as in all other instances, they gradually modified the primitive and pagan notions, in accordance with their purer conceptions of the nature of the Deity. They understood the terms in a spiritual sense. Frank-incense was regarded as a symbol of the devotion of the soul to God, and of its approach to His holiness. It became a metaphor for fervent and contrite prayer. It was, there- fore, burnt entire ; no part of it, as was the case with the oil, belonged to the priest, because the prayer was addressed to God exclusively, to none else. It was put alone, with the exclusion of wine and oil, on the shew-bread, which symbolised the daily worship and supplication of the holy community. It became customary for the people to pray in the Court while the fumigation was performed in the Holy; and the fragrance of the incense and the prayers of the pious were believed to ascend simultaneously to the throne of God. It was, therefore, invested with the power of atonement. It thus had, in vegetable offerings, the force attributed to the blood in animal sacrifices. Its fragrance might even represent the Divine spirit and godlike sanctity. But frank-incense was, like oil, interdicted at the sin-offering and the offering of jealousy; for the latter also' was an oblation "that brings iniquity to remembrance." Both were presented in a condition very different from the qualities symbolised by oil and frank-incense. They reflected neither peace nor devotional prayer; the former had, or might have been, forfeited by guilt; and the latter is accepted from a pure mind only. The thoughtful symbolism of the sacrificial rites will, therefore, be evident from the following survey. Both oil and frank-incense were employed at the independent vegetable oblations ; oil alone at the offering of the High-priest on the day of his 'initiation; incense alone with the shew-bread; but neither oil nor incense at the sin-offerings 86 ^ . A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. and the offering of jealousy. Both were naturally also excluded from the two firstfruit-loaves of Pentecost, because these loaves were lea- vened, and could therefore not be burnt on the altar, either wholly or partially. But while plain frank-incense accompanied the sacrifices, the daily fumigations in the Sanctuary consisted of four ingredients specified in the Law. ^ For incense was primitively and universally employed with offerings ; it was a simple and natural means of external worship ; it was, therefore, retained in the Pentateuch from early usage. But the preparation from the four ingredients is of later introduction ; it is specifically Levitical; it is ordained in harmony with the compli- cated and more splendid ritual of the Tabernacle and the Temple. Hence incense was prescribed for all private worshippers, but the com- pound was reserved for the priests ; the one was burnt mostly in the Court, the other in the Holy only. 5. 6. Wheat and Barley. Wheat was naturally regarded as the choicest, barley as an in- ferior grain. The former was, therefore, employed for all ordinary oblations, the latter in some exceptional cases, where its use may rea- dily be accounted for. As wheat is compact and nutritious, and as it is heavy in weight and has little bran, the term "fat of wheat" occurs as a usual methaphor, and later writers declared it even as "the only food worthy of man, the creature endowed with speech and Divine reason." But barley was considered poor and common; it bore the epithet vile\ it was deemed fit especially for beasts ; it had in Palestine about half the value of wheat ; and it was extensively and perhaps ordinarily employed for bread by the poorer, though occasionally also by the wealthier classes. Barley-meal was, therefore, used for the offering of jealousy: from a reason similar to that which suggested the exclusion of oil and frankincense, the costlier wheaten flour was eschewed in an oblation stern and sad in its character, and pre- sented when the dearest relations of domestic life and affection were disturbed or imperilled. But the presentation of a &«r/6'e/-sheaf on Passover was prompted by considerations entirely external; for barley ripens earlier; it was, therefore, more appropriate for a firstfruit-offering, which marked the beginning of the corn-harvest, and which gratitude demanded not to delay beyond necessity. All symbolical explanations of the com- mand are, therefore, inevitably artificial. 1 Exod. XXX. 34—38; see Commentary on Exodus pp. 430, 431. IX. 7. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF BLOOD. 87 7. Blood. The blood of victims is, in the Pentateuch, invested with a meaning which cannot be mistaken. Probably starting from the simple observations that a considerable loss of blood causes death, and tliat the healthful action of the nerves and muscles depends on its free and normal circulation, the Hebrews held that the blood is "the soul" of the animal, that is, the principle of its existence. It was a funda- mental axiom, "The life of the flesh is in the blood", or "The blood is the soul"; soul and blood were correlative notions; hence dying was expressed by "pouring out the soul"; to "shed blood" meant "to destroy life"; the blood and the soul of the murdered were said alike to cry to heaven for vengeance; "pure blood" became synonymous with "a pure soul"; and even the combination "the soul of pure blood" was formed to denote a guiltless person. "The blood is the libation of life", was a well-understood maxim ; for "the law-giver esteemed it to contain the soul and the spirit"; or "the breath is the essence of the soul, which has no place independently of the blood, but resembles it and is blended with it." Blood was, therefore, considered most sacred; it seemed connected, by a mysterious bond, with the conti- nuance of that breath, which God infuses in producing a livi7}fj crea- ture. The Bible is so consistent in this conception that it indeed identifies blood with the principle of life or "the soul", but never with the power of reason, or with mind, intellect, and "spirit"; the former is represented as animating the outward senses, the latter as a part of the Divine spirit itself. Hence, as animals also were looked upon as endowed with "a soul", they were, in the period of man's inno- cence, not designed to be killed for human food; and thougli, after the flood, their flesh was allowed, their blood was interdicted by a command meant to be binding for all times and in every clime, and enforced under the most fearful penalties, "Whatever man there is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eats any manner of blood ; I will set My face against that soul that eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people";* whicli almost vehement severity, directed alike against the native and tlie foreigner, seems to have been suggested by the opposite and deep- rooted practice of the Hebrews and the surrounding nations.- The same prohibition was, with singular unanimity, uplield l)y Jewish tra- dition; it was by an apostolic decree enjoined upon the early Christians 1 Lev. XVII. 10; comp. vcr. 14; Gon. 2 fomp. 1 Sam. XIV. .'{2, 3;{; Ez. k. IX. 4 ; Lev. 111. 1 7 ; VII. 26, 27 ; XIX. 2(1 ; XXXllI. 25. Deut. XII. 1 r., 23—25 ; XV. 2;{. 88 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. as a most solemn moral obligation ; ^ and it was enforced in the Koran among the fundamental laws of Mohammed's creed. The custom of abstaining from blood i^eems to go back to very primitive times, and was probably suggested by some simple or cosmic reasons. It has been conjectured, that the Israelites shunned blood as being dangerous to gentleness of temper, and fostering animal propensities and the sanguinary nature of beasts ; or as injuring health, and if copiously taken, even causing death, as is especially the case with ox-blood ; or because it was, in Asia, commonly drunk at the sacrifices of heathens, and particularly for the confirmation of oaths or compacts, from which customs the Hebrews were to be weaned. It may be a matter of dispute whether such considerations influenced them in the earliest periods, as they perhaps guided other nations ; but they certainly find no echo in ' the Bible ; this regards the blood as the seat of life, and forbids it for that reason exclusively. And from this point of view alone can the significance of the blood in the Hebrew sacrifices be correctly estimated. As the victim gives up its life for him who offers it, and thereby restores his harmony of mind or secures his atonement, the blood which represents that life is of paramount moment in the economy of the sacrificial ritual; it forms, in a certain respect, its very centre; and not unjustly has it been described as "the kernel of the offering." So intimately was, in the course of time, the prohibition of blood connected with the system of sacrifice, that it was indeed extended to all quadrupeds and birds, but not applied to fishes, because the latter were never offered on the altar. The old Jewish canon "There is no atonement except by blood", accords with the spirit of the Law; the few exceptions judiciously admitted in the " Pentateuch, so far from disproving the supreme importance of the blood in sacrifices, help to confirm the general rule. Hence that blood only was efficacious for propitiation, which was shed in killing the animal, not that which flowed from a wound or any unhealthy organ. The blood was not a mere symbol; it was not regarded, "in the hand of God and by His wiU, as the means of atonement", a view that has been prompted by aversion to the doctrine of vicariousness: it was supposed actually to conciliate the deity as no other agency could have done, because it responds to the demand of "life for life." Nor was it employed in the public ceremonials because it was deemed the seat of desire, passion, and sin, and was, therefore, . to be removed ; if so, how could it be put on the most sacred parts of the Tabernacle 1 Acts XV. 20, 29; XXI. 25, see Commentary on Genesis p. 147; and so the fathers of the Church. IX. 7. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF BLOOD. 89 and Temple, on the altars of the Court and of the Holy, the vail of the Holy of Holies, and the Mercy-seat with the Cherubim? Will it be seriously urged that "the misdeed itself which is engendered by the blood, is purified and ennobled in the presence of God"? Indeed the blood was by no means esteemed impure; it was not considered to have become so because the guilt of the sinner was transferred to the victim; for the latter did not take upon itself the guilt, but the punish- ment of the offender. On the contrary, the blood had the power of puri- fying and sanctifying the dedicated implements on which it was sprinkled, as the brazen and the golden altar, or the persons and garments of the High-priest and the common priests at their consecration, the leper after his recovery, and the contracting parties at the conclu- sion of treaties ; in certain cases, it hallowed even those objects which it touched by chance; and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could declare in general terms, "almost all things are by the Law purged with blood." Had it been impure and not holy, it would not have been put by the Hebrews on the door-posts and lintels of their houses, on the night of the exodus, as a distinctive badge of safety and rescue. It was, like the fat, "the food of God"; and the Law propounded the principle that a sin-offering of which any of the blood was brought into the Holy for atonement, was not to be eaten but entirely burnt; whereas the flesh of the other expiatory sacrifices was consumed by the priests. However, it would be erroneous to declare the blood as the prin-i ciple and foundation to which every sacrificial law or rite is traceable ; such inference can at least not be derived from a passage prominent and notable indeed, but surely not so comprehensive in import, namely "The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul" (Lev. XVII. 11). These words explain merely the signification of the sacrificial blood ; they do not disclose the nature and meaning of the sacrifices themselves. If so, they would exclude all bloodless offerings. The sprinkling of blood formed indeed a part in all animal sacrifices, but it was not the prin- cipal act in all alike ; it had this paramount significance in expiatory offerings, but it was, in holocausts and in thank-offerings, subordinated to other and more characteristic rites. All classes of animal sacrifice, considered together, not the blood itself was most essential, but the j shedding of the blood, or the killing of the victim, or its death. The eating of blood was properly interdicted because it was con- sidered to be or to enclose the soul; but on this prohibition also the 90 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. Levitical legislators desired to impress their stamp ; they regarded such a reason as too mundane and too physical, and therefore strengthened it by urging that tlie blood ought lawfully to be appropriated, on the altar alone, to the ends of atonement. But they were in this case, as in most others, unable to efface the lines of history. A clear trace of the primitive notion has been preserved in two laws : even the blood of cattle that was killed at home and for food was to be "poured out on the ground like water", and to be covered with earth ; and not only the blood of the sacrificial animals, of ox, sheep, and goat, was to be avoided, but also that of all other clean beasts, as stags, roes, and gazelles, and of all birds — evidence enough that the conside- rations of altar and sacrifice did not originally prompt the comprehen- sive prohibition; and this becomes more evident still by a comparison of the corresponding ordinance regarding the abstinence from fat. The notions of the Israelites with regard to the blood were not isolated; they were shared, though with some significant modifications, by nearly every people and tribe which offered animal sacrifices. The Egyptians hieroglyphically expressed the soul by a hawk, because, they said, "the one like the other feeds on blood"; and they plainly taught that the soul and reason of animate creatures dwell in the blood. The Chaldeans held that man was formed of earth and of the blood of the god Belus, the one constituting his body, the other his soul. Early philosophers of Greece simply maintained, "the soul is blood"; some, perhaps adopting Egyptian doctrines, limited this power to the blood of the heart ; the stoics defined the soul as "an exhalation from blood"; and others contended that the soul is nourished by the blood. The Romans used offerimj with a soul as synonymous with ofj'erbig wilh blood, and both were the priestly terms commonly employed for sacri- ficing under favourable auspices. In the old Teuton tongue, blood is equivalent witli soul or life, and the blood of Odin, falling on the ground, was believed, in the ensuing spring, to produce herbs and flowers. Again, the bloody offerings were everywhere the more im- portant class; they were considered to realise more completely the idea of sacrifice, not merely because for warlike tribes, requiring strong sensations, fire-offerings were more congenial than the simpler bloodless oblations ; but because blood was, at all times and under every zone, supposed to be pre-eminently fitted to work expiation and to appease the gods. The Persians offered to the deity nothing of the flesh, but only the blood "or the soul." Whenever the old Ara- bians implored a god for benefits, they besmeared his image with blood. The Chinese put blood on things connected with the object of the sacri- IX. 7. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF BLOOD. 91 fice, as for instance on the ship, in which a voyage was intended, thereby trusting to secure the good-will of j;lie gods. The Scythians poured the blood of captive enemies over an iron shield which represented the figure of the god of war. In India, at the sacrifices of Shiva, the blood of the victim is solemnly carried before the image of the god; his wife Kali is entreated to drink of it; and the people, sprinkling with it their faces, prostrate themselves to the ground. In fact, blood is in many instances synonymous with sacrifice itself. In Greek, to sacrifice was expressed by sprinkling the altar with blood. The ancient Germanic tribes, though presenting bloodless oblations also, called every offering blood (blot) ; to sacrifice or to worship was to bleed (blotan), and sacri- ficial service blood -service (blotinassus) ; the priest was called a blood-man (blotmadur, blotgodar, or blutekirl) ; and among the ancient Prussians the high-priest Criwe derived his name from /fra?via which means blood. Nor was the sacredness of blood less highly estimated by heathen nations than by the Hebrews. Blood was extensively employed for sealing compacts and treaties, and for ratifying solemn oaths and vows, as has been more fully specified in another place. ^ It was on such occasions sometimes mixed with wine, and then drunk both by the contracting par- ties and those present who served as witnesses. The instance of Catiline will at once occur to every reader. The boar-sacrifice offered by the northern nations to Freya, the goddess of fertility and peace, like Ceres, helped to renew the relations of loyalty between the king and his subjects and to confirm the oath of allegiance. Poured into pits or caverns the blood was believed to call up the gods and the spirits of the lower world and to elicit revelations. The drinking of blood was believed to bestow higher powers or spiritual faculties, and especially the gift of prophecy, in a word, to effect a closer communion with the deity and the invisible world. The intact woman who gave oracles in the temple of Apollo Deiradiotes in Argos, killed by night every month a lamb, and drank of its blood whenever she wished to be prophetically inspired. Though the Zabii ordinarily held blood in utter abhorrence and regarded it as the food of fiendish demons, they drank a part of the sacrificial blood, and devoted the rest to the gods ; they thus hoped to conclude with them a holy friendship and to learn from them the future. Witli a similar view, the priestesses of the Cimbri, who accompanied the armies, observed the blood of slain captives as it flowed into a l)razen vessel. The old Germans believed that the blood of victims imparted life and 1 See Comm. on Gen. p. 234, and on Exod. p. 363; conip. also Ps. XVI. 4; Zech. IX. 7;Ezek. XXXIII. 25. 92 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. consciousness to inanimate objects ; they therefore sprinkled it on the images of their gods in the hope of endowing them with speech and sensation. They supposed that it secured prolongation of life; they attributed to it the power of magic and witchcraft, which no earthly effort could resist; and in their language to bleed (blotan) signified to deify or to impart supernatural faculties. We have faithfully recorded and unfolded the notions of Hebrews and pagans on blood: but it would be impossible to analyse them from an absolute or philosophical point of view. They belong inseparably to the whole circle of primitive conceptions ; and in connection with these alone they can be understood and fairly estimated. They ori- , ginated in those childlike times, when the entire living creation was joined / together by a bond of relationship, when the animals, though inferior to / men, were conceived, like them, as cosmic beings, and when, therefore, the blood of either was regarded with the same holy awe and unaccoun- table terror, because in either case revered as an emanation from the ■soul of the universe, and hence inherently possessing the power of puri- ty ) fication and atonement. But so irresistible is the mystic hold of these conceits upon the human mind, that they linger and vibrate even in those religious systems which have risen above a worship of nature and her powers; they have, in such creeds, indeed been subordinated to the doctrine of a Divine Ruler who created man in His own image, and the beasts as clay animated by the breath of life ; but they have been retained as spiritual emblems which, like all symbols, could not be preserved in purity and without an admixture of irrational and super- stitious alloy. 8. Fat. With the prohibition of the blood the interdiction of fat is more than once coupled in the Pentateuch, "You shall eat neither fat nor blood" ; ' it is, like the law on blood, to be valid "as a perpetual statute for all generations";^ and it is enjoined with almost equal severity, and under the same rigorous penalty, "You shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.. .for whosoever eats the fat of the beasts, of which men offer an offering made by fire to the Lord, that soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people."^ Moreover, fat is, like the blood, repeatedly called "the food of the Lord."^ It cannot, therefore, be doubtful, that analogous reasons prompted the law in both cases. Nor is it difficult to discover the common principle. Like the blood, the fat is an index of the life and strength of the animal; and as man 1 Lev. Ill 17, 2 Ibid. 4 Lev. III. 11, 16; Ezek. XLIV.7,15; 3 Lev. VII. 2.3, 25 ; comp. vers. 26, 27. comp. XXXIX. 19. IX. 8. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF FAT. 93 was to abstain from blood, because it was deemed the soul, so was he to avoid the fat, because it was supposed to express the health, vigour, and vitality of the animal. The Hebrew Scriptures allow us to trace the steps by which the fat gradually was endowed with such dignity. It was, from early times, naturally considered as "the richest part and that which guards the entrails; for it envelops them, and makes them flourish, and benefits them by the softness of its touch." It became, therefore, a synonym of wealth and abundance; it was the emblem of joy and cheerfulness; it was employed for what is most valuable and most distinguished ; "the fat of the land" denoted its wealth and its choicest fruits ; the "fat of wheat", the "fat of oiF', and "the fat of wine", designated the richest kinds of these productions; "the fat of heroes" described the bravest of the brave; "the fat of the people", the wealthiest, noblest, and most powerful citizens, also called "cows of Bashan", because these wei e renowned for remarkable fatness. There- fore, whenever the sacrifices were not entirely burnt on the altar, it was deemed right and appropriate to dedicate to the sacred flames those parts of the victim which have aptly been termed "the flower of the flesh", and which, because the best, might well represent all, or the entire animal. As, therefore, most nations, and among them the Phoenicians, burnt the fat to the deity, the rising smoke of which was deemed its most pleasing and most acceptable offering; so the Hebrews, resembling the Phoe- nicians in many points, adopted the general rule, "All fat belongs to the Lord";^ and they clearly understood that it was burnt "as a sweet odour to Him":^ it was so burnt, from remote periods,' in thank- offerings to point to the prosperity and happiness of the worshipper; and in the expiatory offerings, to symbolise the supremacy and power of God. Now, when it was in this manner set apart for the purposes of the altar, then, and then only, it was forbidden for human consumption, and men were not to share what belonged to God. For it is impossible to suppose that a cattle-breeding people, like the Hebrews, surrendered one of the most valuable parts of their slaughtered animals willingly and primitively ; the very severity with which it is prohibited in the Pentateuch proves how generally it was eaten. Nor is it easy to see how, among a simple-minded people, the use of fat could be made a religious crime; the idea that fat is life, is not so natural and manifest as the doctrine that blood \s life; and it pre-supposes a longer course of observation and reflexion. The prohibition is, therefore, evidently a special development of the Levitical theories; it originated when these were worked out with unconditional consistency regardless of the exor- 5 Lev. m. 16. 6 Lev. III. 5, 11, 16; XVli. 6. 7 Comp. 1 Sara. II. 15, 16. 94 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. bitant burdens they imposed upon the people. It was brought into the closest connection with the laws of sacrifice; it was at first not enjoined, like the blood, with the addition "in all your habitations" ; ^ it was, therefore, understood to apply to the time and place of the common offer- ings only; and it was restricted to the fat of ox, sheep, and goat, that is, of those beasts alone "of which men present an offering made by fire to the Lord";^ it was therefore indeed meant to include all animals of these species, since even those intended for food were, according to the same exacting legislators, to be killed as sacrifices at the common Sanctuary;^ but not even the hierarchical party could venture to extend it to all clean animals of whatever species ; while the blood, not so valuable in itself and looked upon with awe from primitive times, could be generally prohibited, both that of all quadrupeds and that of all birds. Only with respect to time and place, the laws of both could gradually be equalised, and a subsequent ordinance declared, "It shall be an eternal statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings. You shall eat neither fat nor blood." ^ These conclusions are corroborated from another^ side also. That the holiness of fat was a later idea is manifest from the circumstance that it is not even enjoined in the Book of Deuteronomy. ^ In the last "song of Moses"/ the author names, among other choice blessings granted by the bounty of God to the Israelites, also "the fat of lambs and rams;" in the poet's time, therefore, that is, at a very late period of the Hebrew commonwealth,^ the fat of sacrificial animals was still unscrupulously eaten and regarded as a special delicacy worthy of being coupled with honey and oil, wheat and wine. It is in harmony with the tenor of the Biblical commands to limit their operation to that fat which, in solid masses, covers the bowels, the kidneys, and the flanks, and not to extend it to that involved in the flesh, which requires to be cut in order to expose it to the view. But, naturally, the fat of all animals which died of themselves, or were torn by beasts, was forbidden as food, because such animals were "unclean." 8 9. Leaven. The reason why leaven was rigorously kept aloof from the altar ^ is indisputable. It cannot be derived from the nature and properties of the prepared substance ; for leaven was deemed to enhance the pala- 1 Lev. VII. 26. 2 Lev. VII. 23, 25. ^ See Comm. on Gen. pp.496— 498. 3 Lev. XVII. 3—5, see p. 3 1 . ^ Lev. VII. 24 ; comp. XVII. 1 5 ; XXIL 4 Lev. III. 17. 8; see notes on VII. 22—27. 5 Comp. Deut. XII. 15, 16, 23—25; » Lev. IL 11; XXIII. 18; comp. Am, see p. 31. 6 Deut. XXXII. 14. IV. 5. IX. 9. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF LEAVEN. 95 tableness and nutritiousness of bread; and as it possesses the power of raising and uplifting, it was occasionally compared even to the "kingdom of heaven.""^ But the cause must be traced to the mode in which leaven was usually obtained — namely, by allowing dough mixed with water to stand for some time till it passed into a state of fermentation or corntptioH. It is on these grounds that leaven was regarded incom- patible with the innermost character of the altar and of the offerings there presented, which typify life and health, regeneration and purity. It was used to symbolise sin and defilement. While, in the later Jewish literature, unleavened bread was an emblem of the virtuous instincts of the heart, and the New Testament speaks of "the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"; ^ ' leaven, or "the leaven in the dough", became a very frequent metaphor for the evil propensities of man ; the New Testament familiarly alludes to "the leaven of malice and wickedness", ' - the "leaven of the Pharisees" which is "hypocrisy", ^^ and the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" which is their perverse "doctrine";'* and it was a current maxim, that as "a little leaven leavens the whole lump", ^' one sinful thought that is harboured in the mind renders the sacrifice unavailing and unaccepted. Hence the ordinance scrupulously to remove from the houses and the whole land, under penalty of ex- cision, all leaven on Passover, and to eat unleavened bread exclu- sively during the seven days, though partly intended as a historical reminiscense, and partly as a symbol of the "bread of affliction" which the Israelites ate in Egypt, was also understood to prefigure that sanctity and purity which behove the people chosen to enter into a solemn covenant with God for the revelation and diffusion of His truth. But the notion of absolutely removing from the altar which secures spiritual life all that recalls the condition of decay, this notion, complex and allegorising, belongs obviously not to an early, but to a very advanced stage of religious thought, and it accords fully with the whole edifice of the Levitical laws of sacrifice. The views entertained by the Hebrews regarding leaven, were shared by the ancient nations. They are, in fact, plainly stated in the following rem ark of Plutarch: "Leaven itself comes from corruption, and corrupts the dough with which it is mixed, . . . and in general, fermentation seems to be a kind of putrefaction"; therefore the priest of Jupiter (flamen Dialis) was forbidden to touch leaven ; and so rigidly was he to be shielded from contact with everything that even remotely 10 Matth. XIII. 33; Luke XIII. 21. i^ iMatlh. XVI. «i, 11, 12. 11 1 Cor. V. 8. 12 Ibid. 1^ 1 Cor. V. fi; Gal. V. 0. 13 Luke XII. 1 ; comp. Mark VIII. 15. 96 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. implied the idea of deterioration, that the same prohibition was ex- tended to flour, which was regarded as corn "deadened as it were and destroyed by grinding", because it lost the strength of a seed-grain without immediately obtaining the usefulness of food. It is not difficult to account for the two exceptional cases in which leavened bread was admitted in the sacrificial service of the Hebrews. Pentecost was the "Feast of Conclusion", because it marked the completion of the corn-harvest commenced on Passover. On that festival, therefore, which was made the occasion of thanks-giving for the sustenance and plenty graciously provided by God for His people, it was deemed appropriate to offer to Him, as a firstfruit-oblation, the daily and ordinary bread, or leavened wheaten loaves, while, on Pass- over, new barley was presented with equal fitness. A kindred reason; seems to have suggested, in praise-offerings, the permission of leavened bread as an accessory to unleavened cakes. The joy-offerings bore a homely and familiar character; the worshipper who, in convivial repast, partook of his own gift, felt that God stood to him in the relation of a friend; the sacred act was devoted to the Dispenser of every blessing rather than to the King or Judge ; on such occasions, the ordinary leavened bread, when eaten by the offerer at the sacrificial meal, was well suited to remind him not less of the benign than the awful attributes of the Deity. 10. Honey. The connection in which the prohibition of honey is introduced, is alone sufficient to guide us in determining the reason of the ordinance : "No bloodless offering which you shall bring to the Lord shall be made fermented ; for you shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the Lord made by fire." ^ From this combination of leaven and honey it is evident, that both alike were disallowed because they create fermentation, and thus involve those notions of corruption and decay so utterly antagonistic to the nature of the life-giving altar. It is needless to state, that honey was everywhere highly prized not only as a delicacy, and that therefore everything pleasant was commonly compared with the "sweetness of honey," but that, if eaten together with other food, it was considered extremely nutritious, conducive to a healthy complexion and longevity ; that hence it was, and is, in the East extensively mixed with bread and pastry, and that honey-cakes were frequently offered to the gods. But it is equally well known that honey easily turns sour; therefore, vinegar was prepared by washing honey- pots^^ -combs with water which was then boiled. 1 Lev. II. 11. ' IX. 10. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF HONEY. 97 This being the simple and obvious meaning of the prohibition, it is surprising to notice the numerous reasons, often curious and fanciful, that have been assigned for it. Some, laying stress on the words, "they (the leaven and the honey) shall not come upon the altar as a sweet odour",- hold that honey was forbidden because, in being burnt, it emits an offensive smell; but this opinion evidently attributes to the words "for a sweet odour" a material and external sense, which they do not possess in the Pentateuch. Philo believes the honey to have been objectionable because the bee is not a "clean" animal ; since "it derives its birth from the putrefaction and corruption of dead oxen, just as drones and wasps spring from the bodies of horses." This fiction, entertained by classical writers also, is overthrown by the familiar fact that the bee has a natural aversion to lifeless bodies, to meat, blood, and fat, and eagerly shuns repulsive phices. "The bee", says Aristotle, "is the only insect that never touches anything putrid"; and the swarm carefully removes the dead bodies of its own species. Its nature is clean. It was hence extensively honoured with the epithets pure and ?vise. It was so regarded by the Pythagoraeans, because it does not settle on beans looked upon them with dislike. The Pythian priestess was described as "the bee of Delphi." It was called the hcst animal, and therefore sacred to Zeus Aristaeus. Holy bees were said to watch the grotto where Jupiter was born. Melissa was his nurse, and Melitaeus one of his sons; tlie former was the earliest discoverer and preparer of pure and innocent human food, and especially introduced and taught the cultivation of fruit-trees. Luna also, presiding over births, was called Melissa, and so every priestess of Ceres, as guardian of the mysteries of the earthly goddess. The bee was the emblem of the Muses ; it was the symbol of the struggle between virtue and vice; of the mind which governs matter; of the soul which -eturns to its divine origin; and among the Egyp- tians, of royal dignity. The Hindoos frequently represented the god Krishnu with a bee hovering over his head. Its wonderful habits and instincts were the types of domestic and social order, of the foundation. uf states and colonies, of blessings and plenty secured by judicious industry, and even of the manifest working of the divine spirit. The very belief of the birth of the bee from the decay- ing body of the bull, was converted into a fine allegory of the soul emerging and rising from the depths of terrestrial matter, and soaring to its celestial home, where it rejoins the deity of which it is a part; 2 Lev. II. 12. 98 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. for the bee is a "home-loving animal." Bacchus, the dispenser of sustenance and joy, was termed "the father of the bees" or Brisaeus. From all these facts it will naturally appear that honey itself was not considered unclean; it was presented as a firstfruit- offering; it could be mixed with those oblations which were permitted to be "leavened"; and it was freely allowed by Jewish tradition. Leaven, though prepared from the very mass of which the bloodless offering consisted, was for- bidden to be burnt on the altar: it is therefore evident, that it was not the origin of leaven and honey which caused their exclusion. In fact, some ancient philosophers and theologians ascribed to the honey itself purifying and preserving power capable of healing old wounds, removing dimness of sight, and preventing putrefaction, whence it was used for embalming and instilled into the noses of the dead to shield the bodies from decomposition. Accordingly, honey was understood as a symbol of rectitude and integrity of life. It was supposed to have been the sole sustenance of the earliest men in their golden age of innocence and perfect virtue. Bread and honey were the ordinary food of the kings and priests of Persia, of Pythagoras and his followers, of the rigid Jewish sect of the Essenes, and hence also of John the Baptist. At the initiation in certain rites, the hands were washed with honey, not with water, to indicate that they ought to be clean from all wickedness and pollution. Honey was eaten to purify the tongue from sin. The libations of honey were described as sober, in contradistinction to those of wine. The Persians offered honey to Mithras, because it symbolised this god most clearly as the guardian and preserver of fruits. It was holy to the Naiades, because their element, the water, is purifying, not liable to putrefaction, and, as was considered, conducive to generation. Therefore, bees were believed to deposit their honey in bowls and jars, because these vessels typify fountains. As if aware of the insufficiency of his first reason, Philo adds another one, hardly more convincing; tlie laws, he observes, interdicted honey in order to indicate that "all superfluous pleasure is unhol}^, making indeed the things that are eaten sweet to the taste, but later inflicting bitter and incurable pains, by which the soul must, of necessity, be agitated and thrown into confusion"; and this opinion, variously modified, recurs repeatedly. The Talmud commenting on those verses of the Proverbs which advise a moderate use of honey, applies them figuratively to all kinds of intemperance, even to excesses in spiritual matters and in speculation. Theodoret deemed it unfit for the altar as a symbol of sensual enjoyment, since, in primitive times, IX. 10. SYMBOLICAL MEANING OF HONEY. 99 and before the cultivation of the vine, it was a luxury of the dissipated, was believed to lead to wild indulgences and carnal desires, to indolence and thoughtlessness, and being effervescent, symbolised haughtiness and contumacy ; it was, in fact, used as an emblem of death, or of secret corruption by sin, "because the life of the soul perishes by pleasure"; it was designed to teach that whoever is intent upon good works, must shun sensuality and exercise rigid severity towards him- self. Hence Jerome believes that nothing that is merely sweet, without having in it an element of pungent truth, was to be offered in tlie Sanctuary; and Nachmanides declared that everything sweet must be tempered with bitterness, just as God, in creating the world, coupled mercy and judgment. These opinions disregard the unmistakeable hints of the Hebrew text, which forbids honey, not because it is sweet, but because it is "fermenting", and which fixes for the exclusion no other reason than for the prohibition of leaven. Maimonides asserts that honey was forbidden to the Israelites, because it was commonly used at the sacrifices of the heathens. It is true that it was dedicated to nearly all gods, among others to Janus, when he was implored to grant "a sweet" or happy year, and espe- cially to the evil deities and those of the lower world, to Pluto and Proserpine, Hecate and the Furies. But the Pentateuch, though opposing pagan notions, left untouched innocuous pagan customs, which it readily employed if capable of embodying useful religious ideas. If it had meant consistently to carry out the principle of opposition, it would have rejected the domestic animals for victims, flour, incense, oil, and salt, nay the sacrifices themselves, which yet Maimonides regards as an accommodation to deep-rooted pagan usages. Again, it has been supposed that honey was looked upon with disfavour, because it was largely employed at the libations for the dead, which the Hebrews were to hold in abhorrence; but such libations frequently consisted of oil and wine, which were not excluded from the offerings of the Hebrews. Some imagined that the bloodless oblations were to be pure and unmixed flour; others, that being pleasant to the taste, honey might mislead to the belief that offerings are agreeable to God in proportion to their palatableness ; and others again, that, being a later and artificial innovation, perhaps combined with idolatrous mysteries, it was banished by a legislator desirous to restore the old and patriarchal simplicity in the sacrificial service : but the bloodless offerings contained, besides flour, also salt, oil, and wine; and the Levitical rites, in point of simplicity, differed vastly from primeval practices. H 2 100 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. li. Typical Explanation. From the preceding remarks on salt, oil, and frank-incense, on blood and fat, on leaven and honey, it will be manifest that the sijm- 'bolical interpretation of the Hebrew sacrifices and their rituals is in accordance with the spirit of the Scriptures. It derives support from other commands of the Pentateuch, the tendency of which is evidently symbolical. Phylacteries are plainly ordained as a "sign" and a "memorial" for the Law and its observance. ^ The golden plate with the words "Holiness to the Lord", worn by the High-priest on his mitre, was clearly designed to lead the Hebrews to a consciousness of their sins, and thus to render their gifts and offerings acceptable. - The flesh of certain classes of sin-offerings was to be consumed by the priests, to indicate that they "removed the iniquity of the congregation and made atonement for them before the Lord."^ The Hebrews were enjoined to sit in Tabernacles during seven days every year, that they might perpetually be reminded of the time, when their ancestors, res- cued from Egyptian bondage, pitched their tents in the desert under Divine protection.^ Moreover, the Hebrew prophets insisted with holy earnestness upon the moral and spiritual ends of all ceremonials ; and they taught impressively by symbolical acts,^ which indeed, natural in themselves, are peculiarly suitable and attractive to a childlike intelli- gence requiring to perceive the ideas in some outward embodiment. But very different from the symbolical is the typical explanation: this regards the ceremonies and events of the Old Testament as, the prefigurements of some corresponding doctrine or occurrence recorded in the New; it, more especially, supposes the Hebrew sacrifices and their rituals to foreshadow the person and nature, the life and death of Christ. As it has exercised a momentous influence upon the formation of religious dogmas, the enquiry is not uninteresting what value ought to be attached to it. But it cannot be justly estimated, as will presently be evident, without a direct reference to the Talmudical and Rabbinical mode of exegesis ; we therefore premise a short deli- neation of the latter, after which we shall compare it with that adopted in the New Testament. As in nature, so in history, the same things are often repeated at different times and in different degrees of perfection; the development 1 Exod. Xni. 9, comp. Dent. VI. 8, & Comp. Isai. XX. 2—4; Jer. XIII. 9; Comm. on Exod. XIIl. 9. 1— 11 ; XVIII. 1—0; XIX. 1—12; XXIV. 2 Exod. XXVIII. 36, 38; sec Comm. 1—8; XXVII. 2—12; XXVIII. 10— U; oil Exod. p. 416. XXXII.7-14;Ezek.IV.l— 13;V.l— 4; 3 Lev. X. 17; comp. Sect.X. 14; XV. Hos. II. 1—9; III. 1-5; etc. 4 Lev. XXIII. 43. IX. 11. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 101 of nations and of mankind advances in rliythmic cycles, each complete in itself, and each analogous, but superior, to the preceding. The Hebrew mind had, in the period of the Old Canon, created for itself a certain system of religious thought and public devotion, compact and consistent, and for the time entirely satisfactory. But the Jews advan- ced; they unfolded the germs of the earlier literature, and they assimilated to their own views ideas borrowed from the creeds of other nations. Yet they had long learnt to look upon the Old Testament as the all-embracing code of wisdom and knowledge, which must contain — it may be in obscure allusions or hidden allegories — all truths that can ever be discovered by the human intellect to the end of time: they acted upon the conviction, "turn it and turn it, for everything is in it." Therefore, they strove to corroborate any new conception or opinion by connecting it with some really or apparently kindred passage of the Scrip- tures, and they introduced that connection by the word "as it is written." For instance, BenZoma said, "Who is wise? He who learns from every body; for it is written, 'I acquired knowledge from all who taught me'";^ though the words employed have in the Psalms where they occur a very different meaning, viz.. "I have more knowledge than all my teachers." Such midrashic elements began to appear from very early times, in fact, not long after the completion of the second Temple ; they are discernible in all, even the oldest translations of the Hebrew Bible, in those of the Septuagint, Syramachus andTheodotion, in Onkelos, Jona- than, and the other Targumim, in the Peshito, and even m the version of the Samaritans generally so reluctant to adopt anything from the rival sects ; they were recognised by the Essenes, of .whom Philo clearly observes, "Engaged in the sacred Scriptures, they speculate on their national philosophy by allegorising; for they look upon the literal expressions as symbols of some secret meaning of nature, in- tended to be conveyed in those figurative expressions;" and Philo himself habitually indulging m kindred modes of elucidation, supposed every Biblical expression to imply a double sense, a physical and spiritual, that is, a literal and allegorical one. At first, the Jewish doctors were cautious in this method : pre- serving the consciousness that the combinations were the work of their own judgment, they desired the Scriptural passage to be regarded as no more than a mere "support" of their own view, or as implying, at best, only "a hint" in reference to it, and the Mishnah, still sparing in that process, speaks of many new laws that "fly in the air and have no 6 Mishn. Aboth. IV. 1 ; comp. Ps. CXIX. 99. 102 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. Hiblical Iniin.lation", and of others tliat are "like mountains suspended by a hair, as thoy are little alluded to in the Bible, yet developed into numerous ordinances." liut gradually, though not without opposition from some more sober sects, as the Sadducees and Baeothusians, they pursued the same path with greater boldness and assurance ; they considered no opinion safe against later fluctuations, unless guarded by Scriptural autiiority ; they deemed it, therefore, necessary to trace all the innumerable expansions of the Law to the Bible, which they diligently searched and unscrupulously employed for that object; and they seriously and confidently pointed to their discoveries, no matter linw .strange soever, as "proofs" of the doctrines they were anxious to diffuse. In this manner, that which at first Avas understood merely as a happy and welcome parallel, was imperceptibly converted into an irrefutable argnmcut. It is obvious that the text of the Bible could not without being strained yield the desired results. How could the unlimited number of later laws, ideas, and ethical precepts be pressed into the small compass of the Old Testament without the most hazardous ' and the most violent manipulations? Indeed, the expedients employed by the Talmudists to gain their object, form a most curious chapter in the history of human ingenuity and intellectual perversion; they are barely redeemed from reckless frivolity by the religious earnestness which prompted them, and the high aim which they were designed to serve ~ that of hallowing every thought and elevating every relation of life. It was supposed that the diction of the Bible, that is, the holy language of God, is superhumanly profound and significant, capable of involving all future progress and mental life, pregnant of marvellous and mysterious power; that it teaclies many things at once; hints by one word at many truths; conceals a lesson in every sign; is designedly obscure, and frequently renounces current expressions; that it may long baffle the efforts of liunian reflection and penetration, dimmed as these are by sorrow and suffering, but reveals itself at last to pious research; while the enigmas tliat remain uns<^lved, will one day be disclosed by the light of the Redeemer — views which were encouraged by the peculiar and inde- finite character of Hebrew phraseology, and by the indistinctness of many legal and ritual (»rdinances. Occasionally, a gleam of a better hermeneutical method broke through the chaotic confusion; it was declared, "In the whole Law, the text does not pass beyond the literal sense", or "the Law speaks in the ordinary language of men", or specific instances were judiciously generalised and referred to similar cases: but the actual application of these abstract principles was a IX. 11. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 103 rare and unavoidable exception; as a rule, they were absolutely ignored, and sometimes expressly disclaimed. Ordinarily, letters of the Bibli- cal text were transposed or read with different vowels and interpreted accordingly, combined with the preceding or following word, or permuted with letters of a similar form or of an analogous position in the alphabet. Words were interchanged with others of an approximate sound, or read in a different order, computed according to the numeri- cal value of their letters, and then replaced by others making up the same sum: or they were pronounced superfluous, unusual, or anomalous, on purpose to render them available as supports of some fancied idea. Some particles were supposed invariably to include something else, others, always to exclude a notion. Verses were torn from their context, and invested with a meaning utterly foreign to it, gpr they were divided, cut asunder, and distorted with such a degree of arbitrary freedom, that sometimes even Talmudists expressed their disapproval, and began seriously to doubt whether the literal exposition ought not to be admitted at least by the side of the allegorical. Important analo- gies of religious law were founded upon a slight and accidental verbal resemblance; and inferences were drawn entirely unwarranted by the manifest tenour of the verse. The words of the Scriptures were com- pared to jewels set in silver plates, or to a string of pearls, beautiful as an entire ornament, but precious also individually; thus they were regarded as full of import both in their continuity and their isolation. The recurrence of the same word in different passages was deemed sufficient ground for explaining the passages themselves as identical or kindred; and it was believed that every verse could be interpreted from multifarious points of view. Such rules were necessarily fraught with the most singular and most deplorable results. No conceit was too fanciful or grotesque, no construction too incongruous and artificial, too illogical and capricious, if insinuating by adroitness or wit, or evolving a novel idea from familiar terms. Every trace of sound comment vanished, and the Bible was overgrown with the weeds of eccentric paradox. All the conclusions so obtained were endowed with the same authority and holiness as the clear utterances of the Bible. They were regarded not only as justified, but as so exclusively genuine and infallible, that Talmudists could propound the surprising rule, "he who renders a verse according to its plain form (that is, literally) is a fal- sifier" ; although they had the boldness to add, "he who makes any addition is a blasphemer." The history of the Christian or typical interpretation of the Bible was in many respects analogous to that of the Jewish schools just 104 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. sketched, and the stages of advance were nearly identical. The earlier phases are visible in the B..oks of the New Testament. The apostolic writers, Jews by birth and education, followed in the exposition of the Bible the taste and usage of their time and people; nay, they would . probably, for practical ends, have accommodated themselves to the current manner, had it even, as is not apparent, been uncongenial to them. In fact, the New Testament offers numerous instances both of "the support" and "the proof: the former is, as in the Mishnah and Talmud, introduced by "as it is written" or "spoken" ;i the latter usu- ally by "that it might be fulfilled, what was spoken or written." ^ One instance of each will suffice. When Christ intended to enter Jerusalem, it is related, "when he had found a young ass, he sat thereon; as it is writtei^Fear not, daughter of Sion : behold, the king comes, sitting on an ass's colt." ^ Joseph returning with the child Jesus from Egypt, went into Galilee, and "he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled, what was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."* Let us briefly examine the two passages. The second Zechariah prophesied of a time when peace would unite the nations of the world, when God would "cut off every chariot and every horse, and cut off every battle-bow, and He would speak peace to the nations" ; when, therefore, the ideal king, "just, and victorious, and lowly", would not ride on a horse, used in war and loving the tumult of battle, but on an ass, the peaceful, harmless, and patient animal, which would alone be employed in those days of perfect harmony. How then can the riding of Christ on an ass at a time, when the horses were not "cut off" and warfare had not ceased, in any sense be called a l»arallel toZechariah's description! how much less can it be considered a fulfilment! The picture which the prophet draws of the future monarch is not that of humiliation, but of humility, and every one knows that the ass is, in the East, by no means looked upon with contempt. More characteristic still is the second passage. Isaiah speaks of the Mes- sianic king in the following words, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch {netser in Hebrew) shall grow out of its roots", ^ that is, the Messiah shall be a 7ietser of the house of » John XII. 14; Acts II. 16; comp. XIII. 35; John XIII. 18; XV. 25; XVII. MaUh. XXI. 13, 42, 44; XXVI. 31 12; XVIII. 9; XIX. 36; comp. Malth. (Zech. XIII. 7); 1 Cor. I. 19, 31; II. 9; II. 17; XXVI. 54, 56; Luke (IV. 17) IX. 0; 2 Cor. VI. 2; VIII. 15; Rom. XXII. 22, 37 ; XXIV. (15) 27, 44; Mark II. 24; HI. 4, 10, IS; V. 17; VIII. 36; IX. 13; John V. 40, 4G; 1 Cor. XV. IX. 13, 33; XV. 3, 21; Hebr. V. 6 54,55. Rom. IV. 3 ;X. 8; XI. 2. 4; Gal. IV. 30. 3 JohnXII. 14, 15; comp.Zech.IX.9. 5 Mntth. 1. ^-l: 11. 15, 23; VIII. 17; 4 Malth. II. 23. s isai. XI. 1. TX. 11. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 105 Jesse: therefore, concludes the Eviingelist, Christ settled in Nazaret/f, that he might, in fulfilment of such prophetic expressions, be called a Nazarenc; the Hebrew word nctscr for the appellative noun branch was thus taken as the type of the tonm Nazareth in Galilee — a com- bination preposterous in the extreme, and exactly in the spirit of the Jewish Midrash. But it seems expedient to insert a few specimens of the general interpretation of the New Testament, which will help to form a well- balanced judgment. Christ endeavoured to prove the resurrection of the dead by the words which God spoke to Moses at the burning bush, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", that is, manifestly, I am the God that was acknowledged by, or revealed to the patriarchs ; but Christ interprets, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living";^ therefore the patriarchs cannot cease to exist, they must be immortal : can this most casuistic deduction really be deemed a support of the doctrine of immortality? and has it the least reference to that of resurrection ? — The apostle Paul thus annotates or explains some verses in Deuteronomy declaring that all enjoy ready access to the Law, and need make no perilous effort for its discovery, "Say not in thy heart. Who shall ascend into heaven? — that is, bring Christ down from above; or who shall descend into the deep? — that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead":"^ in the latter part, the Hebrew text is even inaccurately quoted or rendered, evidently for the sake of the application; for the correct words in Deuteronomy are, "Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us?" — God said to Abraham, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed",^ that is, evidently, in thy descendents, since immediately before God had promised, "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven";^ yet St. Paul, urging the sintjular of the collective noun seed, argues, "To Abraham and his seed were the promises made : he says not. And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." ^ ° — In one passage, the same apostle introduces an elaborate comparison of husband and wife with Christ and the Church, which he describes as "a great mystery" ; ' ^ and in another, he declares the verse of Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn", a command undeniably suggested by motives of humapity, not at all to be meant literally — for "does God take care for oxen?" — 6 Matth.XXII.32;comp.Exod. III. T). « Vcr. 17; comp. Gen. XIII. 15; 7 Bom. X. 6, 7. XVII. 8. »o Gal. III. 16. 5 Gen. XXII. 18. n Eph. V. 22— 3.?. 106 • A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. but to toMch that tlio minister ought to be maintained by the congrega- tion and to gain his sustenance by the preaching of the gospel.* — Of Abraham's two sons Ishmael and Isaac, the former was born of the b(mdmaid Hagar "after the flesh", the latter of the free woman Sarah "by promise" or "after the spirit" : this is by the apostle taken as an "aileg(try"' and interpreted to point to the old and the new covenant; for, says he, ''Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the actual Jerusalem which is in bondage with her children"; while Sarah is "the Jerusalem above which is free and which is the mother of us all", since to her apply the words of the prophet, "rejoice thou barren that bearest not etc.";' now as Ishmael persecuted his younger brother, so must the followers of Christ, who, like Isaac, are the children of promise, be persecuted by their older kinsmen, to be, however, ultima- tely victorious and to inherit alone the kingdom of heaven. Irrespective of the taste in which this exposition is conceived, it is wholly in- appropriate with regard to the types and antitypes; for the first covenant or that of Mount Sinai was also concluded with the descendants of Isaac, while Ishmael stands in no relation whatsoever to that "testa- ment" or tlie Mosaic Law: therefore even Luther was forced to the confession that the allegory of Sarah and Hagar is untenable because it disregards the historical truth. The author of the hundred and tenth Psalm, in language no less obscure and abrupt than fervid and devoted, congratulates a contem- porary king of Judah upon achieved or expected victories, "Jehovah speaks to my lord. Sit down at ray right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool... rule thou in the midst of thy enemies;" and in rising veneration and enthusiasm the poet exclaims, "Jehovah has sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchi- zedek," that is, he declares him worthy to unite, like Melchizedek in Abraham's time, the crown of royalty with the crown of priesthood, and wishes or predicts the "eternal" preservation of the double dignity in his house. This Psalm received from an early date a Messianic interpretation, which was favoured both by its soaring elevation and pregnant brevity; it was evidently so understood by the Jews in the time of Christ; and Christ and the apostles applied it in this manner with the assent of their hearers.* It is, therefore, but natural that 1 1 ror.IX.9, 10;comp.Drut.XXV.4. 25—28; Hebr. I. 3, 13; X. 12, 13; esp. 2 Calat. IV. 22—31 , the sitting of Christ "on the ri^ht hand 3 Isai. LIV. 1, quoted from the Sept. of God" (meaning- "be thou My stadthol- « Comp. Ps. ex. 1 andMatth. XXII. der or co-reg-ent") ; comp. also Matth. 42— 4fi (Mark XII. 35—37; Luke XX. XXVI. B3, 64; Mark XIV. 61, 62; Luke 41-44); Acts II. 30—36; 1 Cor. XV. XXII. 69; Acts VII. 55, 56; Rom. VIII. 1 IX. 11. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 107 Melchizedek "king of Salem, a priest of the most high God," expressly named in the ode, should have been taken as the type of Christ — "a priest or Hig4i-priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." ^ But , the expedients which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews'' adopted to carry out the parallel, are indeed highly curious. He explained the jiamc of the Canaanite monarch, which is simply "righteous king", as "the king of righteousness", the fountain of wisdom, sanctification, and redemption;' and he interpreted the town Salem or Jerusalem as peace, so that Melchizedek was the "king of peace" ;^ but more strangely still, he described him as "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life ; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."^ What are the supports that justify the assumption of that marvellous nature of Melchizedek, to whom the Old Testament makes absolutely no other allusion except in the history of Abraham — "king of Salem, a priest of the most high God" — and in the Psalm above analysed, where he is but incidentally named both king and priest? But it is the silence of the Hebrew Scriptures which seems to have been eagerly seized by the author of the Epistle: they do not mention his father and his mother — therefore he had none ; they do not mention his descent — therefore he was unconnected with human generations; they do not mention his birth nor his death — therefore he was neither bom nor did he die ; and all this was evidently assumed that he might be "like unto the Son of God", with whom, as was supposed, that Psalm compared him.^^ But is this surprising argumentum exsilentio, unparalleled as it is, effica- cious after all? does it not prove even too much? Was indeed the Christ of the New Testament "without mother"? was he indeed "without descent"? he whose indispensable attribute it was to descend from the house of David? '^ Can the proof that he was neither, be attempted without the most wanton distortions? But it must be observed that the idea of the possibility of a birth either without father or without mother seems to have been familiarly entertained about the time of Christ: thus Philo calls Sarah "without mother*', because "she had no share in the female race" and its weakness, and "was not formed of the materials accessible to outward perception, which are always in a state of 34;Eph.l. 20— 22;Col.III.l; IPet.lII. 9 Vers.3, 6; Yl. 20; comp. X. 12, 14. 22; Hebr. VIII. l;Rcv.III. 21; V.l, 7. lo Comp. Mattfi.I. 1^, 20; Luke 1. 35. 5 Hobr.V. 6, 10; VI. 20; VII. 17, 21. 'i Comp. John VII. 42, "Hath not the 6 Hebr. VII. 1—3. Scripture said, that Christ cometh of ^ 1 Cor. I. 30; comp. Jer. XXIII. 6. the seed of David"? see also Matth. IX. 8 Rom.V.l;Eph.II.14, 15,17;comp. 27; XV. 22; XXI. 15; etc. Isai. IX. 5, 6; Zech. IX. 9, 10. 108 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. formation and dissolution", but "had emerged out of the whole corporeal world." It is certainly possible that the writer did not wish to press the analogies too closely, conscious that they would either lead to an unscriptural identification of Melchizedek and Christ, or to a super- natural paradox, or to a grave Biblical perplexity, since, if Melchi- zedek "abideth a priest continually," there would be neither room nor occasion for the priesthood of Levi and of Christ: but if so, the whole of that typical explanation collapses and falls to the ground. Indeed, how can ]\Ielchizedek, who was not even permitted to use the sacred name of Jehovah, because, not belonging to the race of Abraham, he had not fathomed His attributes,^ and was merely a priest "of the most high God," how can he be the type of the "Son of God," the em- bodiment of Divine wisdom and holiness? how can he at all point to the future unfolding of God's kingdom ? The comparison between the two lies in the blending of the regal and pontifical power, and in nothing else ; and as the former was to remain "forever" in David's house, so also the latter. We are, therefore, happily released from following the writer of the Epistle into his remaining and over-subtle inferences, all designed to glorify Christ by means of Melchizedek — that the latter received the tithes from Abraham himself, and through him, as it were, from theLevites also, while these could exact them from their fellow-Hebrews only; that he blessed the patriarch and must therefore have surpassed him in exalted dignity; that he is immortal, while the Levites were perishable beings; that he, therefore, installed with the confirmation of an oath, absorbs and annuls the Levitical priesthood;^ and we pass over the numerous and incredible reveries that have been ventured on the nature, the life, and the office of the priest-king so briefly and so imperfectly alluded to in the Old Testament. If, therefore, the speculative expositions of Talmudists and Rabbins must, in principle, be denounced as playful and futile, the same epithets apply with equal force to the typical expositions of the New Testament; both belong to the same class and the same mental bias, and fall at the slightest touch of criticism. Perceiving the questionable value of interpretations which might well tend to discredit the whole canon, great Christian divines alleged, that the allusions made in the New Testament to the Old, have no argumentative weight, but are merely introduced as suitable and me- morable similes, "to illustrate the subject treated of." But. the express and unequivocal declarations of the New Testament do not permit such evasion. It is true that in a few passages, words are inserted from the Old ' Gen. XTV. 19, 20. See Comm. on Gen. p. 229. 2 Hebr.VlI.4— 21. IX. II. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 109 Testament as no more than familiar or convenient expressions, ^ even with- out being marked as quotations;^ and it may be that in some others, the "type" is represented as consisting simply in an accidental and illustrative analogy, and not in a designed and intended pre-figuration. Thus the disobedience of the Hebrews in the desert and their consequent punish- ment are described as "our examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted", ^ which only implies the warning to expect similar disasters from similar offences. ° As the brazen, and therefore poisonless, serpent was lifted in the desert, and gave health to those who looked up to it, so Christ, sinless and nailed to the cross, saves those who turn to him in faith. "^ Jonah remaining three days and three nights in the whale's belly, was a "sign" that Christ would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. ^ But other passages entirely exclude such conception; they were unmistakeably meant to involve the idea of real types. Thus Adam is called the "figure of him who was to come",-' or "the first man of earth, earthy", while Christ is "the second man, the Lord from heaven." '^ The Deluge in which Noah was saved is a "figure" of baptism and its power of salvation.^' The history of Hagar and Sarah is an "allegory", the former of the old Jerusalem, the latter of the new, or of the covenant through Christ. 12 The earthly Sanctuary made by human hands on celestial patterns and guarded by human priests, is the "figure of the true one" in heaven presided over by Christ. '^ And with a more com- prehensive scope, "the holy ghost" signified the incomplete service in the Temple as a "figure" of the time when through Christ worship will be perfect. 1* The Jewish priests are affirmed "to serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things",'^ while the Law has merely "the shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things", and could therefore not render those perfect who sacrificed under that dispensation, 1^ since the ceremonial precepts, as those on food, the sabbath, and the holidays, were "a shadow of things to come", or "the weak and beggarly elements", whereas "the body is Christ."*' 3 1 Cor. II. 9; III. 19, 20; XIV. 21 ; 7 Num. XXI. 8, 9 ; John III. 14. 2 Cor. IV. 13; VI. 16—18; VIII. 15; 8 Matth. XII. .39, 40; but this is not IX. 9; Matth. XXI. 13; Rom. III. 4; IV. accurate. Comp. Matth. IV, 4— tJ, 7, 10. 10—18; VIII. 36; IX. 25, 26, 33; XV. 9 Rom. V. 14. lo i Cor. XV. 47. 3, 21; Hebr. III. 15 ;X. 5, 38; XI. 13; n 1 Pet. III. 21. 1 Pet. II. 4—8. 12 Gal. IV. 22—31 ; see p. 106. 4 Rom. X. 6, 7, 13, 18; Hebr. II. 12, i3 Hebr. IX. 23, 24; comp. IX. 11; 13; 1 Cor. XV. 25, 27; Eph. IV. 26. VIII. 5 and Exod. XXV. 9, 40. 5 1 Cor. X. 6. 14' Hebr. IX. 9. is Hebr. VIII. 5. Comp. 1 Cor. IX. 9, 10. i6 Rom. X. 1. n Col. II. 110 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. In niirratiiig the life of Jesus, the Evangelists introduce a series of events which, though tliey had happened in previous times, occurred again in the history cf Christ, but in a manner so much more real that they were considered as the "fulfilment" of the former. Jesus was burn by the Virgin Mary, that a corresponding promise given to Isaiah mure than 700 years before and at that time literally realised, might be '•fullilled." ' He was taken to Egypt as a child and brought back to Palestine, that he might "fulfill" in a deeper sense the words of the prophet Husea, originally applied to the Hebrews, "Out of Egypt have 1 called my sun."- The child-murder at Bethlehem which he occa- sioned, was the "fulfilment" of the carnage perpetrated by the Baby- lonians in Jerusalem at the time of its destruction about six centuries befure;^ although the former was utterly insignificant compared with the fearful bloodshed of the latter. He cast out the devils and healed the sick, that the utterances of Isaiah with regard to the servant of God who "took our infirmities upon himself and bore our sicknesses", might be realised in a profounder meaning.^ He always spoke to the people in parables, that the intention of Asaph, who declared at the beginning of one of his Psalms, "I will open my mouth in a parable, I will utter dark sayings of old", should be carried out in a manner as it could never be done by Asaph himself.^ He declared that Judas must betray him, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, "He that eats bread with me, has lifted up his heel against me", words used many ages before by a poet groaning under misery, persecution and disease. '^ The money received by the traitor and then returned by him in the Temple, was employed for buying "the potter's field" as a burial place, in order that a corresponding purchase actually jnade by Jeremiah in the Babylonian period might be "fulfilled";^ although the same trans- action is, in another place, very differently related, so that evidently various traditions and legends existed on the subject.^ Who does not see that these and similar "fulfilments'^ founded neither upon human ' Mallh. I. 23; comp. Isai. VIT. 14. VIII. 23;IX. 1; Malth.XlI. 18—21 and 2 AlaUh. II. 1.-,; Hos. XI. 1. ISai.XLII. 1—4; Matth.XIII.14, 15 and 3 Matlh. II. 17, 18; comp. Jercm. Isai. VI. 9, 10; Matth.XXVlI. 35 (John XXXI. 15, 16. XIX. 24) and Ps. XXII. 19; John XV. * Mallh. VIII. 16, 17, Isai. LIII. 4. 25 and Ps. LXIX. 5; John XII. 37—41 '- Mallh. XIII. 35; seePs. LXXVIII.2. and Isai. VI. 10; LIII. 1 ; Acts XIII. 35 c John XIII. 18 ; comp. Ps. XLI. U). —37 and Ps. XVI. 10; sec also Mallh. 7 Matlh. XXVII. 9; comp. Jercm. XXVI. 24, 54; XVII. 12 and XVIII. 9; XXXII. 8 sqq.; comp. Zechar. XI. 13. XIX. 28, 37; XX. 9; Luke XXIV. 25, 9 Ads I. IS— 20; comp. Ps. LXIX. 27, 44, 46; Mark IX. 13. Sometimes 29; CIX. 8, 10. the quotations from the 0. T. are in- 9 Comp. ^latth. IV. 15, 10 and Isai. correct, whether unconsciously or in- IX. 11. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. Ill design and co-operation, nor upon internal necessity, nor the remotest causal connection, are nothing but self-discovered adaptations not always happy and invariably deceptive, in the Rabbinical taste above characterised ? But the New Testament proceeded even farther in this direction. The principle of fulfilment was applied not only to events, but to laws. The command to roast the paschal lamb entire, so that no bone of it is broken — to symbolise the unity of the families and the nation — found its true fulfilment, when the legs of Christ were not broken after the crucifixion. ^^ But this latter accommodation was only a part of a larger conception. Starting from the notion of the Old Testament that lea- ven is corruption and decay, and that, therefore, Passover or "the feast of unleavened bread", is the emblem of purity and sinlessness, ' ^ and moreover considering that Jesus died on the day before that festival, evangelists and apostles took the paschal lamb for the type of Christ, and set forth the doctrine, "Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us"^- — manifestly as a sin-offering, in harmony with the character of the firsl or Egyptian paschal celebration. ^^ Applying these notions to the sacrificial code in general, they maintained that Christ is the great sin-and purification-offering, by whose blood the transgressions of the world are for ever forgiven and eternal redemption is wrought;*' and advancing, a step farther, they arrived at the idea that he was the universal and true sacrifice, which had been foreshadowed by all the defective offerings of the Old Testament, and thenceforth rendered them for ever superfluous ; *^ so that the Hebrew sacrifices, once acts of daily and perpetual necessity,*^ "were manifestly evangelical sermons on the suffering, death, and justification of Christ." For he gave himself up as a sacrifice, not like all other victims, but self-consciously and spontane- ously; and, possessing an inner affinity both with the human and the Divine nature,*" he alone was able to effect a true intercourse between tentionally, in orderto effect the desired HI. 16; VI. 51 ; X. 15; Rom. III. 24,^5; fulfilment or to make it more striking-; IV. 25; V. 2, 6—9, 11, 15, 19; VIII. comp. Matth. 11. 6 and Mic.V. 1 ; 1 Cor. 31—39; 1 Cor. VI. 20; XV. 3; 2 Cor. 11.9 and Isai.LXiV. 3; while sometimes V. 18, 19, 21; Gal. I. 4; Eph. I. 7; V. various passag-es are mixed or blended; 25, 26; Col. I. 14, 20 — 22; II. 14; comp. Rom. XL 20, 27 and Is. LIX. 20, 1 John I. 7; II. 1, 2; III. 16; IV. 10; 21; XXVII. 0. Hebr.II. 9; VII.25;IX. 14, 15, 18—22, 10 John XIX. 36; comp. Exod. XII. 9, 26; X. 12; 1 Petr. I. 18, 19; II. 24; Tit. 46; and supra p. 16. II. 14; Revel. 1. 7; comp. also Eph. V. 2 11 See p. 95. 12 1 Cor. V. 7. and 1 Cor. V. 7. 13 See Sect. XVII. is Hebr. IX. 25— 28; X. 10, 12, 14. 14 Matth. XX. 28; XXVI. 28; Mark le Hebr. X. 1—3, 11, 12. XIV. 24; Luke XXII. 20; John I. 29; i7 See p. 47; comp. 2 Cor. V. IS, 19; 112 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. (Jod and men, and to create a communion between mankind and God. And as every sacrifice was desig^ned as a covenanl with the Deity, from which reason each was to be accompanied by the "salt of the covenant uf God", ' so were the death and the blood of Christ the means of a new covenant between God and the human race, involving the everlasting remission of sins.'- These ideas were, with eager zest, worked out into iiiinuto parallels: the lamb was in the Old Testament ordained as the most usual victim, because it is, like Christ, the emblem of innocence and of patience under sufferings; the sacrificial animals were to be faultless, because Christ was without defect and free from all disease of guilt;'' the sin-offering was burnt without the camp, as Christ suffe- red without the gates of Jerusalem;^ the flesh of the victims was consumed, because the flesh of Christ was to be eaten by the believers, and his blood drunk to acquire eternal life. ^ But Christ was regarded not unly as the i'/67/y/^ but also as the ^^r/f^// that is, as the mediator between God and men,' in fact, as the true High-priest, ^ appointed by an oath of God, '^ eternally occupying the dignity, without follower, ^'^ and alone completely realising the idea of an intercessor, because in order to atone for others, he does not require first to atone for himself. ^ ' Unbiassed readers might suppose that these views of the New Testament approach the very boundary even of fantastical adaptation. They might consider that most of them obviously include their own refutation. The faultlessness of the victim was a requirement even in heathen sacrifices.'- The holiest kind of sin-offerings was neither consumed by the priests nor the offerers, but burnt entirely ; the less holy class was indeed partially eaten, but by the priests alone; while tlie worshippers were permitted to partake of the thank-offerings only, which involve the idea of atonement in the least degree;'^ and when Christ declared, "I say to you. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you",'"* ^^ amazed his 1 Tim. II. (i; Epli. V. 2; sec Matth.XX. 6; IX. 15; XII. 21; comp. VII. 25; IX. 2S; .Tolm X. IS; Rom. V. 19; 1 IVl. II. 24; or surety, Hobr. VII. 22; comp. 22. 2;; ; Il.-l.r.lX. 14 ; X. 5, 0. 2 Mace. X. 28. ' 8.C p. SO; comp. Ps. L. 5. 8 Hebr. III. 1 ; IV. 14 ; V. 5, lO; VI. ■! MaUh. XXVI. 2b; MarkXlV. 24; 20; VIII. 1 ; IX. 11 ; X. 21 ; Xlll. 1 1. . Luko XXII. 20; Uebr.IX. 14—22; XIII. 9 Hebr. VII. 21 ; comp. I's. CX. 4. 20; 1 Cor. XI. 25. lo Hebr. VII. 23, 24; comp. Ps. 1. c. 3 Hebr. IX. 14; 1 Pel. I. li); II. 22; see pp. 107, 108. 2 (or. V, 21 ; John VIII. 4{). n Hebr. V. 3; VII. 20, 27, 2^; IX. 7. ' Hebr. XIII. 1— 13. 12 See pp. 69, 70. '" John VI. 53—58. i3 Comp. Hebr. XIII. 10, 11. e Hebr. VU. 15; Vlll. 4; etc. i4 John VI. 53; comp. vers. 32, 33, " Gal. III. 20; 1 Tim. 11. 5; Hebr.VIII. 54—58. IX. n. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 113 own disciples, many of whom left hira thenceforth for ever. '^ The Hebrew prophets never expected or wished the sacrifices to be abrogated in the time of the Messiah. ^"^ There lived indeed in the better minds of the nation the hope that God would, in due time, conclude with Israel "a new covenant"; but this covenant was not meant to consist in a new Law, but that the old one should become a truth and a reality in the lives of men, after a complete remission of their sins. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: in those days, says the Lord, I will put My Law into their minds, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and tliey shall be My people; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more:"^^ "Anew heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh"; ^^ and in that time, it was anticipated, sacrifices would be performed not alone at the place of the Ark of the Covenant, but everywhere in Jerusalem, in which town, as at the throne of God, all nations would, in purity of heart, assemble with their offerings. ^^ But neither difficulties nor improbabilities deterred prepossessed minds from tlie dangerous path. With increasing exaggeration and arbi- trariness, the typical method was pursued in subsequent ages. Degrees of deterioration are distinguishable in the New Testament itself. While the allegorical applications attributed to Christ are comparatively simple and intelligible, those of St. Paul are considerably bolder, though always ingenious and original, fresh and spontaneous, and often surpri- sing by admirable and important deductions; but the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, basing his conclusions not upon the original Hebrew text, but upon the Greek translation, even where it is manifestly erroneous, is subtle, studied, and laborious, yet versatile, able, and dexterous. 2 However, even he was immeasurably surpassed by those who followed his track, by Barnabas, Justinus Martyr, and Origen, by Ambrosius and Hilarius, whose typical elucidations are often flimsy, poor, and trivial In vain the voice of warning was raised by thought- ful and discerning men; in vain did St. Augustin advise the utmost caution and moderation ; he observed that details of the Old and New Testament are often very cleverly compared with each other, but »5 Vers. 60, 61, 66. 20 Comp. Hebr. I. (i and Ps. XCVII.7 16 Seep. 48. Sept.; Hcl.r. II. 10—12 and Ps. XXII. 17 Jer. XXXI. 33, 34 (Hebr. VIII. 23; Hebr. III. 7— IV. 9 and Ps. XCV. 7—13; X. 15—18); comp. XXIV. 7. 8—11; Hebr. VII. 17, 21 and Ps. CX. 18 Ezek. XXXVI. 26—28. 4; Hebr. II. 7 ; X. 5; XII. 26, 27 and 19 Jer. III. 16, 17; see pp. 43, 44. Hag:^. II. 6. 114 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. that this is not done by Divine suggestion, but by conjectures of the human mind, which indeed sometimes discovers the truth, but is as frequently in error. But so strong was the propensity of the time, and so powerful the temptation to yield to it, that St. Augustin himself propounded the theory of a fourfold interpretation of the Scriptures - according to history, causality, analogy, and allegory — a theory which, in the Middle Ages, produced no less mischievous effects among Christian theologians, than the corresponding Talmudical canon of the four modes of exposition — according to the literary meaning, the occult or underlying sense, the allegory, and mystery — called forth among Jewish scholars; the former gave rise to the mystic and theo- sophic, the latter to the cabalistic and chasidic schools, the luxuriant extravagance of which totally overspread and buried the plain sense of the Bible. The typical method knew no bounds ; and it went astray into the most arid wastes of fanciful speculation. The broad doctrine was set forth, that even the actual events re- corded in the Old Testament happened but figuratively, and were images to be realised and truly accomplished in Christ. It would be unprofi- table to recount all the typical inferences that have been ventured on such premises; let it suffice to mention some of the more moderate views and explanations. Rachel, long praying for issue, and at last giving birth to Benjamin under pain and death, was understood as the Jewish Synagogue, for ages expecting the Messiah and then killing him. The blooming rod of Aaron was the Divine appointment of Christ and his work through the resurrection. ^ The manna that fell from heaven in the night, is Christ, the heavenly, who was born in the night, the food of the soul; it was white in colour, because he was innocent and spotless; it was at first unfamiliar to the Hebrews, because he is not understood by ungraced men of nature; a part of it was preserved in a vessel as a memorial, to point to the Lord's supper that would in due time be instituted. Nearly all the prominent persons of the Old Testament — as Isaac and Jacob, Joseph and Moses, David and Solomon ^ — were taken for types of Jesus, his life, and his sufferings ; and Elisha with his twelve yokes of oxen for the emblems of Christ and his twelve apostles,-' who, however, were also prefigured by the twelve wells of water at Elim, the twelve gems in the High-priest's breast-plate, the twelve stones selected from the Jordan by the command of God through Joshua,* and by the twelve cakes of shew-bread, pure and unleavened, ^ Num. XVll. 23; comp. Hebr.LX. 4. 3 Comp. 1 Ki. XIX. 19. 2 Comp. Hcbr. I. 5 and Ps. II. 7; 4 Ex. XV.27; XXVIIl. 17— 21; Josh. 2 Sam. VII. 4. IV. 2—8: Matth. XIX. 28. IX. 11. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 115 since Christ is the bread of life. ^ The priest laid the incense of the people on the altar, because Christ alone can bring human supplications before God; and the incense was burnt with the fire taken from the brazen altar, because any prayer unconnected with the sacrifice of Christ is illegitimate and cannot approach the throne of God. All sacrifices were to be offered in Jerusalem, because Christ was there crucified;^ yet the ashes were to be removed without the camp to a clean place, because Christ was buried at a spot that had not been rendered levitically impure by bones of -the dead. The paschal lamb was to be selected five days before the festival, because Christ came to Jerusalem to suffer death a similar time before Passover;' and the former was to be killed "between the two evenings", because the latter was nailed to the cross at the same time of the day. ^ The victim was to be neither too old nor too young, because Christ took upon himself the punishment of human sin in the bloom of his life, when he was most able to feel the agony and to ponder over it. The offerer killed the victim himself, because Christ was slain by the people whom he redeemed. The fat and the fat parts, that is, the choicest portions of the animal, were to be burnt on the altar, because God gave for the salvation of the world His most precious treasure, His own son. Yet the burning of the animal symbolised both the tortures of hell that await the sinner, and the death of Christ which saves him. One goat was slain on the Day of Atonement, and another sent out free into the wilderness, because Christ was killed for mankind, which by his death became free from sin and its direful retribution. Certain pieces of the sacrifices were "heaved" and "waved", because Christ, when nailed to the cross, was lifted up, and as it were waved to the four winds. A number of objections against these and all typical views must at once crowd upon the reader's attention. He will first of all be struck by the uncertainty and indistinctness of the interpretations. Can Christ be at the same time the victim and the mediating priest? If the victim, how can he intercede? if the High-priest, how can his blood be shed for atonement ? Yet he is represented both as the one and the other ; in either case the parallels are worked out into microscopic details ; and the inevitable result is a most perplexing confusion both in the sacrificial rites and in the attributes of Christ. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems indeed to have felt this difficulty; for he represents Christ as the victim on earth, but as the High-priest after 5 Comp. John VI. 35, 53, 54, 57, 58; ' Comp. John XII. 1. see supra. ^ Comp. Matth. s Comp. Exod. XII.O and notes in loc.\ XX. 18; MarkX. 33; Luke XVIU. 31. see p. 123. I 2 116 A. THE PKINCIPAL SACElFlCES. his crucifixion, in heaven, which is the Holy of Holies where he per- forms his ministrations;' but if so, where is the analogy between the ordinary sacrifices and that uf Christ? That one and chief inaccuracy led naturally tu unlimited and almost universal identifications ; Christ was contended to be, in his own and sole person, "victim, sacrifice, priest, altar, God, man, king, High-priest, sheep,' lamb, in fact, all in all, that he may bo our life in every respect" ; till in this maze of entanglement every landmark disappeared, and all connection with the Old Testament was utterly lost. Occasional similarities may be discoverable, because, as we have above remarked, historical events repeat themselves within certain conditions; but even a cursory examination will generally prove the decided preponderance of the divergences. H Christ is the "Passover", huw can his life, even by the remotest allegories, be harmonised with the requirements of the paschal lamb, which was to be roasted, consu- med t'liiirt'ly^ without the least portion being left, eaten with hitto^ Iwrbs, and killed annually? Typical explanations cannot be consistently followed out without leading to absurdities, of which a treatise entitled "How Christ — the altar — was square"? is but one specimen in a large class. If their adherents gave duo weight to this consideration, they would attempt to test their religious tenets by their own intrinsic merits, rather than by unnaturally grafting them upon the Old Testa- ment. As many theologians, therefore, had not the courage, typically to interpret all details, they selected some as adapted for that method, while they understood the rest literally; but a principle which is not generally applicable is no principle at all, and reveals its fatal weakness. Some distinguished between in/wrcnl and transferred types, the former being marked as such in the Scriptures, the latter formed by analogy; others explained every point in a twofold manner, once as a mystery of Christ, and once as a mystery of the Church, or as "a memorial" of a past, and as "a type" of a future event, so that the Old Testament was supposed frequently to interrupt itself in the historical context, in order to speak typically of the coming events of the New; or an idea of the Hebrew Scriptures might be fulfilled at different times and in different degrees of distinctness and comprehensiveness, so that, for instance, the prophet Elijah, promised to precede the Messiah, is not only John the Baptist, but "the impersonation of the preacher of repen- tance"; ^ and the pouring out of the spirit of God upon all flesh announced by Joel, was by no means entirely realised by the inspiration 1 H.l.r.V. yjO;VI. 19,20; Vll. 26: 2 Mai. III. 1, 23; comp. Mark 1.2; ^'^^••^- Matth.XI. 10, 11. I IX. II. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 117 of the apostles,^ but continues to be fulfilled till it has indeed literally pervaded all mankind. Some maintained that the Levitical institutions refer to Christ and to him alone ; others averred, that they prefigure many necessary truths besides. Some were of opinion that the Bible contains the whole sum of typical expositions, and others held that it includes but a fragmentary portion of them, while the rest, having lived for a time in oral tradition, were later forgotten and lost. Thus the basis was found for the most contradictory views; one sect proved as a dogma what another rejected as heresy; and interpretations were continually propounded to be soon renounced as impossible by their own framers. So understood, the Hebrew text would be more am- biguous and indefinite than any Egyptian hieroglyphic; it would be bereft of every practical value; ideas and institutions would he exposed to typical abuses just in proportion to their profundity and signifi- cance; and in the same measure would they cease to be intelligible or available. Again, according to theories like those described, the sacrifices would, from the time of Moses to that of Christ, that is, during the whole period of their performance under the Law, have been devoid of all sense, of all meaning, of all tangible purpose whatever for the Hebrews. Were they understood by them as types? coidd they possibly be recognised as such? If the former alternative be supposed, all indi- vidual Israelites were prophetically inspired; if the latter, the typical relation must so clearly, so organically and inherently lie in the sacrificial laws, that it occurs spontaneously to every mind. But the one assumption is a paradox, though it has been asserted by some extreme champions of the method ; the other a palpable fallacy overthrown by experience, for even after the diffusion of Christianity and of the writings of the New Testament, the typical applications were neither discovered nor acknowledged by large numbers of Jews and Christians. Needs it to be seriously proved, that an ancient Israelite, in offering a sacrifice, hoped for expiation through the blood of the animal he was then killing, and through no other blood? Where does the Old Testament give the slightest hint or allusion to the contrary? Indeed, the early Hebrews were total strangers to the doctrine of a suffering and dying Messiah, as will be demonstrated in another place ;'' they could not possibly, therefore, in presenting a sacrifice, have had in their minds a redeemer at once God and man, at once victim and High-priest. The Old Testament describes the sacrificial enactments as aternal, the best and most advanced among the Hebrews deemed 9 Acts n. 16—21 ; comp. Joel III. 1—5. * See Sect. XIX. 118 A. THE PETNCIPAL SACRIFICES. them so, and Jesus himself acted accordingly;* but after the death of Christ all oblations would have been superfluous for those who be- lieved in him, since he is to them the great antitype, by whose brilli- ancy all the pale types of bj'-gone ages are eclipsed: thus the New Testament, instead of being a fulfilment of the Old, would be in em- barrassing contradiction with its main principle. It has been argued that God cannot delight in sacrifices, which in themselves are inexpressive; if He yet commanded them, they must have possessed some hidden object; and whatbetter and deeper meaning could they involve than an internal affinity to Christ and his work? But for the ancient Hebrews the sacrifices were not inexpressive or meaningless; they were to them amomentous reality; they were deemed well-pleasing in the eyes of God if presented in the right spirit. The Cherubim, the shew-bread, the Tabernacle and its utensils, the offerings and their rituals, had certainly a symbolical significance; they were to impress and to familiarise certain ideas and truths held essential for devotion and moral improvement; this end was sufficiently important — and it was the only one that was aimed at. It has often been asserted that the words of the prophets were, in the time of the latter, indeed to be understood far more in reference to current events; but "the Divine intention looking far into the future, formed the speech so that it suits more properly the time of the Messiah"; and on such grounds, the Psalms in which the poet speaks in the first person, and which are quoted in the New Testament,- were supposed to be written in the name of Christ. This irrational opinion is so entirely bound up with an antiquated and exploded or "mechanical" form of the doctrine of inspiration, that it vanishes before the light of historical criticism and philosophical analysis. ^ And finally, the typical view is only compatible with false and inadmissible notions regarding the composition of the Biblical canon. It starts from the theory that "the same necessary connection subsists between the words of God as between His works in nature." "The Bible ', it is supposed, "is based upon an organic coherence, according to which the Old Covenant bears the same relation to the New, as the embryonic germ to the perfect development" ; and on these or similar » Sec pp. 45—47. Hcbr. 1. 8, 9); LI. (comp. Rom. III. 4); 2 Ps.V. (comp. Rom. III. 13); XVI. LXIX. (comp. John II. 17; XV. 25; (comp. Acts II. 25; Xill. 35); XVIII. Rom. XV. 3); LXXVIH. (comp. Matth. (comp.Rom.XV.9);XXII.(coinp.Malth. XIII. 35; John VI. 31); CII. (comp. XXMI. 13, 40; John XIX. 24; Hcbr. II. Hcbr. I. 10); CIX. (comp. Acts 1. 20); 12); XXXIV. (comp. 1 Pet.III. 10—12); CXVI. (comp. 2 Chron. IV. 13); CXL. XL.(comp.Hebr.X. 5—7); XLV. (comp. (comp. Rom. III. 13). 3 See Sect. XXVI. i IX. 11. TYPICAL EXPLANATION. 119 principles, the typical explanation is still defended by some writers. That opinion contains indeed a certain general truth; but the truth is blended with deluding error which cannot be redeemed by its insinua- ting speciousness. It lay in the natural progress of development that ceremonials should gradually be superseded by a more spiritual worship, as they were partially renounced by sects anterior to the Christian era, like the Essenes and the Sadducees ; it was equally natural that the ceremonial service, as ordained in the Hebrew Scriptures, should be made the foundation of the reformed faith: thus in a certain sense, the earlier phase points to the later, and the later is derived from the earlier; and the apostle Peter might not unjustly say, that "the spirit of Christ" was in the old prophets.'' But though the writers of the New Testament, following the bent of their age as has been shown, could represent their creed and dispensation as a "fulfilment" or more real manifestation of past doctrines and events; it must be absolutely denied that the authors of the Old Testament, and especi- ally of the Pentateuch, regarded their laws and institutions as the transitory germ of some higher form to be unfolded in the lapse of ages, or as parts of a preparatory economy to be ultimately merged in some more perfect system; on the contrary, they looked upon them as final and immutable for all times, because embodying the sum of all truth and Divine wisdom. This is a cardinal point decisive on the ques- tion : the Old Testament repudiates all change as ungodly innovation ; therefore, it can never be employed for sanctioning the important and often radical modifications adopted in the New; the one cannot be re- garded as the "shadow" or "figure" of the other; in spite of many points of contact, both are two distinct designs separated from each other by numerous and heterogeneous influences. • Indeed the typical theories, after having been upheld for a time in the Reformed Church with tenacious and even vehement zeal, by Coc- cejus and his school, by Bengel and his followers, began to lose ground towards the end of the last century, and are at present virtually aban- doned by Protestant critics and scholars. "We have no hesitation", wrote G. L. Bauer as early as 1805, "in acceding to the opinion at present all but generally entertained that typical exposition is not founded in the holy Scriptures, and that the types are pious plays of imagination and of wit." Now returning to the symbols, we shall describe and explain the sacrificial acts. 4 1 Pet. I. 1 1 ; coinp. also Gal. III. 24; III. 18—26; and comp. Deut. XVIIT. 18 2 Cor. III. 6; Rom. II. 29; VII. 0; Acts with John VI. 1-1. 120 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. X. SACRIFICIAL CEREMONIES AND THEIR MEANING. 1. Preparation. The presentation of an offering was naturally, and therefore pro- bably, preceded by suitable preparations in consonance with the nature of the sacred ccreinony. Outward and inward purity — the former the ritual prototype of the latter — was the primary condition of man's approach to God; it was enjoined before great festivals, and when some special Divine manifestation was expected or hoped for; it was, no doubt, after the diffusion of the Levitical spirit and law, rigorously enforced; it was under the specific name of "sanctification" made an indispensable preliminary to public assemblies and fasts, national works and enter- prises;' and it was expressed by the removal and renunciation of every emblem of heathen superstition, by bathing, and wasliing or change of garments, and frequently by conjugal ahstinence, extended on remark- able occasions to three and more days.^ When Samuel arrived at Bethlehem, he addressed the elders, "Sanctify yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice: and he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called him to the sacrifice." -"^ The laws of purification were enlarged and intensified with respect to officiating priests. ^ The Mishnah pro- pounded the principle that no one, even if he were pure, was permitted to enter the Court and to take part in the service unless he had bathed beforehand. In the period of the second Temple, when, corresponding to the 24 orders of priests, the nation was divided into 24 sections for the sake of representing the people, by weekly rotation, at the daily public sacrifices, those who thus acted as national delegates had to fast during their week, except on Sabbath and the day that preceded and followed it ; the residents of Jerusalem and the neighbouring towns were obliged to attend at the Temple, while the inhabitants of more distant places had to perform particular prayers and devotions in the Synagogues of their districts. Similar views pervaded all ancient creeds. The Hindoos were commanded to begin the sacrifice by a "bath of purification." The Egyptians inaugurated the great festival of Isis and its solemn sacri- fice by a fast and matrimonial abstinence during nine days. For some time, varying from 7 to 12 days, previous to important religious observances, they were scrupulous in chastity and lustrations, avoided » Comp. Joel I. 14; IT. 1.5, 16; IV. 9; on Exod. p. 248; comp. also Zoph. I. Mic. 111. 5 ; Nch. 111. 1 ; comp. Ps. XX. 7 ; Jer. XII. 3. 2 Comp. Genes. XXXV. 2—4 ; Exod. 3 i gam. XVI. 5 ; comp. also Job 1. 5. XIX. 10, 14, 1.5; XXXlll. 5, 6; .losh.III. * Exod. XXX. 17—21 ; XL. 30—32; 5 ; VII. 13 ; sec Comm. on Gen. p..306; comp. Treatise on Priesthood, ch. I, i X. I. SACKIFICIAL CEREMONIES — PREPARATION. 121 animal food and certain kinds of vegetables. Prior to killing any victim, the Persians addressed prayers to the fire, the pure element. Those who came from whatever distance to worship in the temple of Hierapolis, were prescribed to abstain from any drink but water and from sleeping in a bed, till they had returned to their homes. The Chinese emperor prepares himself for tlie grand procession and sacri- fice, which take place at the commencement of spring, by severe religious exercises during three preceding days. The Greeks, con- sidering purity of body an indispensable requisite, appeared, with their offerings, not only in clean, generally white garments, but also, except in times of mourning, festively decked with wreaths or garlands, which were made of appropriate leaves and flowers, and which, by placing the wearer under the protection of the deity, rendered him inviolable : and before the sacrificial acts were begun, a direct exhortation warded off all "profane" or unclean persons, and admonished those present to reverential silence. An ancient writer comprehensively stated the requirements in the following words : "The worshipper must approach the gods cleansed, purified, bright, sprinkled with water, washed, stainless, chaste, unspotted, hallowed, sanctified, with a pure mind, with fresh and washed garments." The women who took part in the processions of the festival of the Thesmophoria in honour of Ceres, shunned conjugal embrace for nine days before. Washing of hands, facilitated by basins with holy water kept at the entrance of temples, commenced the sacrifice; "to be excluded from the holy water", was equivalent to being debarred from sacred rites, especially sacrifices, on account of guilt of blood; while "to allow the holy water", expressed admission to religious privileges. Hector, requested by his mother Hecuba during a battle to offer a libation, deprecated it with the words, "I dread to pour out the sparkling wine to Zeus with unwashed hands." "Never venture", writes Hesiod, "to offer a libation of dark wine to Jupiter or the other immortals with unwashed hands ; for they do not listen, and spurn thy prayers." The Platonists, when intending to offer supplications to the gods, were recommended to fast, or at least to abstain from meat. In certain cases, offering in a state of moral impurity was, by Plato's advice, to be punished with death. The Romans combined nearly all the introduc- tory ceremonies — they bathed in spring water, arrayed themselves in fresh, white garments, washed their hands, adorned their heads with wreaths, warded off unclean persons, ' and in some instances refrained from sexual intercommunion in the preceding night or nights. "Wor- shippers shall approach to the gods with purity", observes Cicero, "that 122 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. is tu say with purity of mind, which is everything ; not that the law dispenses with purity of body; but this must be understood in as much us the mind is superior to the body"; terms almost identical with those employed by Philo on the same subject, "It is necessary for intending sacrificers to be cleansed as to their bodies, and as to their souls before their bodies; for the suul is the mistress and the queen, and superior in everything, being endowed with a more Divine nature" ; and both utterances are perhaps an echo of the beautiful admonitions attributed to the Pythian priestess: "EntLT the pure god's temple sanctified "In soul, with virg-in water purified: "One drop will cleanse the good; the ocean wave "Suffices not the guilty soul to lave," The broad rule was established, "Whoever wishes properly to perform a sacred act in honour of the gods, must first thoroughly purify himself"; and Virgil was praised for strictly conforming his narrative to that law. Inviting the peasants to the lustration-offering of the rural festival of the Ambarvalia, Tibullus demands, "You also I order to stand aloof — approach not the altar — you who the preceding night enjoyed the pleasures of Venus: chastity delights the gods; come in clean garments, and cleanse your hands with water from the spring." And opponents of animal sacrifices pointed to the strange anomaly that, while the burning of flesh and fat, of skins and feathers, produced an intolerable stench, the worshippers were earnestly exhorted, "whenever they prepared to visit the temples, to preserve themselves pure from every stain, clean, and above all chaste." Numa ordained that previous to religious processions, heralds were to pass through the streets and order general cessation from labour. For, observes Plutarch', "as the Pythagoraeans were known not to suffer casual devotion or worship, but demanded that people should .undertake it well prepared in mind from the beginning, thus Numa believed that his citizens ought neither to hear nor to see anything appertaining to divine service at random or carelessly, but putting aside everything else to direct their whole minds to the pious act as to their most impor- tant business; wherefore he wished, during the sacred ceremonies, the streets to be kept clear of all din and noise and turmoil inseparable from everyday work," Hence it remained a Roman custom up to the latest time, that before the beginning of public sacrifices a herald proclaimed with loud voice the words "hoc age", thereby inviting all present to absorbed attention and silent devotion. I X. 2, 3. SACRIFICIAL CEREMONIES - THE TIME, THE PLACE. 123'" 2. The Time. The Law contains no enactments with respect to the time of the day when the offerings were to he presented ; except that it orders the daily holocausts to be killed "in the morning", and "between the two evenings",' that is, between the later part of the afternoon or about 3 o'clock and sunset, - which hours are also fixed for the killing of the paschal lamb,^ and were later selected for the afternoon prayers'* As regards all other offerings, they were probably deemed suitable at any time during the day between the morning- and the evening-holocaust; for the former marked the commencement, and the latter the conclusion of the diurnal public worship; therefore, sacrifices were hardly offered either before the one or after the other; though those that had been slain in the day could be burnt in the subsequent night. ^ Many nations selected the earlier part of the day for their offerings, in order to make the repast that followed the sacrifice coincide with their principal meal; but the Hebrews could not possibly sanction the distinction adopted by the Greeks and Romans, who sacrificed to the upper gods who give the light or enjoy its exhilarating rays, by day, and to those of the lower world who pass a cheerless existence in sombre darkness, by night. 3. The Place. Prepared in the manner described, the offerer, whether man or woman, brought^ the gift to the place where alone it could be lawfully presented, namely "before the Lord",' or as it is more accurately qualified, "to the door of the Tent of Meeting", that is, into the Court, where the altar of burnt-offering stood ;^ for rites designed to effect or to preserve the communion between men and God could fitly be per- formed nowhere except at the spot specially dedicated to Divine presence and revelation. With such severity was this rule enforced that an Israelite or stranger who slaughtered a victim at any other place, was not considered as one who had presented a sacrifice, but as one who had committed a murder, "Blood shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.'"^ The injunction was therefore expressly repeated with regard to every 1 Exod. XVI. 12; XXIX. 39, 41; XXX. 6 Comp. lev. IV. 4, 1 4 ; XII. 6 ; XIV. 8; Num.^XVIII. 4. 23; XV. 29; XVII. 4, 5, 9; also Rom. 2 SeeComm. on Exod. pp. 146, 147; XII. 1. comp. .1 Ki. XVIII. 36; Ezra IX. 4. ' Lev. I. 3, 11; III. 1, 7, 12; IV. 4; 3 Ex. XII. 6. IX. 2, 4, 5; comp. Exod. XXIX. 42; * Dan. IX. 21 ; Ezr. IX. 5 ; Acts .III. Lev. IV. 4; XV. 14; XVI. 7. 1 ; comp. 2 Chron. XXIX. 27—30. " ? Exod. XL. 6. 5 Comp. Lev. VI. 2. ^ Lev. XVII. 3—5, 8, 9. 124 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. individual class of sacrifice, to holocausts,' eucharistic^ and ex- piatory offerings, 3 and offerings of purification.'' It was evidently designed as a means of securing among the Hebrews the unity of public worship, of banishing by a rigorous control all idolatrous rites, and of permanently strengthening the faith in the undivided authority of God. But H was no more than a consistent consequence of Levitical principles; we have above pointed out the difficulties which operated against even its approximate observance, and have tried to prove its all but total disregard during long epochs of Hebrew history. ^ In some other polities, analogous practices were observed or advo- cated. An enactment of the Roman Twelve Tables enjoined, "No one shall have gods privately." Plato strongly recommended the following law, "Let no one perform sacred rites in private dwellings; but if any one desires to sacrifice, let him go to the public buildings, and there sacrifice; and let him place his offerings in the hands of the priests and priestesses to whom the holy ritual is entrusted"; if a person is convicted of special orgies in private temples, he is to be warned, and punished by a fine or a heavier penalty. His reasons are, in some respects, kindred to those which guided the Hebrew legislators; he saw the danger of extravagant aberration if sacrifices and the erection of private temples or statues were permitted to the caprice, ignorance, or superstition of every individual; but he was, in other respects, influenced by fanciful considerations; he feared that impious men, putting up altars in their private dwellings, might think they rendered the gods propitious by sacrifices and prayers in secret, and thus en- couraged in their iniquitous path, they might call down the anger of the gods upon the whole community — as if the wicked could not offer blasphemous gifts and prayers at public as well as private altars. The Law ordains to kill the victim "on the side of the altar of burnt-offering northward."^ Indeed, the northern side of the altar was manifestly the most convenient locality ; for to the west of it was tlie brazen laver and the access to the Holy; in the east, it would have obstructed the entrance of the Court, especially as the place for depositing the ashes was also on the same side;^ and in the south, there was, at least in the later Temple, the gently sloping dam of earth, which led up to the top of the altar. ^ The Greeks and Romans offered to the upper gods on high, to the terrestria l deities on low altars, a nd to the infernal powers on grates ' Lev. I. 3. 2 III. 2, 8, 12. , e Lev. I. 11 ; IV. 24; comp. 29, 33; 3 IV. 4, 14; VI. 18: XIX. 21. VI. 18; VII. 2; XIV. 13. » XII. r,; XV. 20. 7 Lev.I. IC 5 Soo pp. 1 fi— 19. 8 See Comm. on Exod. p. 372. X. 4. SACRIFICIAL CEREMONIES — IMPOSITION Oi^ HAND. 125 or in pits, a custom which naturally grew from their mythological systems, and which corresponded with the practice of touching the ground with the hands while praying to Demeter or Terra, of stretching them forward while imploring the deities of the sea, and of lifting them to the skies while invoking Jupiter. 4. Imposition of the Hand (n^^DD). When the offering had been brought within the precincts of the Sanctuary, and an appointed priest, after a searching examination, had declared it to possess all legal requirements and to be duly qualified for the altar, then only the proper rites of sacrifice commenced. If it consisted of a quadruped, whether an ox, a sheep, or a goat, the offerer, first of all, laid his hand upon the head of the victim. This act was identical in manner, whether the sacrifice was a holocaust, a eucha- ristic or an expiatory offering. '^ It matters little whether the hand was laid slightly upon the head, or as Jewish tradition contends with the full force of the body, though the latter view is supported by the etymology of the term. As a rule, one hand was imposed, probably the right one, since the right hand was considered stronger, more privileged, and more auspicious; on the scape-goat alone, which was properly no sacrifice, but was under peculiar ceremonies sent alive into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement, the High-priest laid both his hands, ' ^ evidently because the head of the animal was to be marked, in the most signal manner, as laden with the sins of the people. The act was performed, within the precincts of the Sanctuary, by the offerer himself ; it could not be transferred or entrusted to any one else, not even a priest, except when the sacrifice was presented in the name or on behalf of the sacerdotal order. It was hence confided to the elders of the people, if the sacrifice was presented for the whole community. But on the Day of Atonement, it was, like all the other functions connected with the exceptional service of the day, performed by the High-priest who acted as mediator between God and the nation. From these facts it appears easy to determine its meaning and signi- ficance. It was manifestly designed to indicate the personal and inti- mate relation between the worshipper and the victim. Thus, when Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as priests, he caused them to lay their hands on the head of the sin- and burnt-offerings, ' * to signify that the victims were killed on their behalf. Those who heard a man blaspheme the name of God, imposed their hands on his head to testify that both as Israelites and witnesses they were closely concerned in 9 Lev. 1.4; m. 2, 8, 13; IV. 5, 15. lo Lev.XVl. 21. ^ Lev. VIII. 14, 18. 126 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. liis late. When Moses was to appoint Joshua as his successor, and to confer upon him a part of his own spiritual glory, he was com- manded to place his hand upon Joshua's head before the eyes of the congregation;' and similarly, in the New Testament, imposition of the hand is employed as an emblem of imparting the spirit of holiness. ^ The Israelites imposed their hands on theLevites, when the latter were initiated to serve in the Sanctuary in their stead, ^ in order to express the closeness and directness of their mutual relation. This was evidently the general character of the ceremony; but its nicer and more exact purport was qualified by the special nature of the sacrifice at which it was performed. In holocausts and thank-offerings it implied the con- fession of reverential submission and gratitude; while in expiatory offerings it conveyed, besides, the ideas of penitence and atonement. But in all cases it pointed to the vicarious nature of the animal, and its power of mediation between God and the suppliant.'' More than this it was hardly intended to symbolise. It cannot have been designed to invest the animal with a higher sanctity or power, in which case it would have been performed by the priest, the representative of God, and not by the offerer who himself required or solicited purification. The rite was omitted if the animal sacrifice consisted of a fowl — a pigeon or a turtle-dove. Rabbinical writers maintain, that it was accompanied by verbal utte- rances, in harmony with the nature of the sacrifice; namely by a con- fession of sins at expiatory offerings, by a declaration of offences com- mitted against positive injunctions of the Law at holocausts, and by a recital of the praises of God at thank-offerings. Some oral expression of the feelings and cravings of the offerer is indeed not improbable. Even the patriarchs, after building altars, are generally reported to have "invoked the name of the Lord"; and this is certainly in accordance with the spirit of the ceremony under consideration: Expiatory offerings are repeatedly stated to require confession of sins;^ and the Deuteronomist sets down an elaborate address to be spoken at the oblation of firstfruits and tithes, ^ In fact, sacrifices are, in a remarkable passage, used as an equivalent for mentioning the name of God: "An altar of earth shalt thou make to Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt- offerings...; in all places where I shall let My name be mentioned I will come to thee and bless thee." ^ The Psalmist entreats, "Let my prayer be set forth before 1 Num. XXVII. 1 8—20 ; comp. Deut. * See Sect. XVIII. XXXIV. 9. 5 Lev. V. 5 ; Num. V. 7 ; comp. Lev. 2 Comp. Acts VI. (5; VIII. 17; XIX. XVI. 21. 6 Deut. XXVI. 3— 10; 13—15. : 1 Tim. IV. 14; etc. - Exod. XX. 21 ; see 1 Sam. XIII. 12; 3 Num. VIII. 10. Prov. XV. 8. X. 4. SACRIFICIAL CEREMONIES — IMPOSITION OF HAND. 127 Thee as incense!"^ Jonah promises, "I will sacrifice to Thee with the voice of thanks-giving."^ The Temple is indifferently called "house of sacrifice" ^^^ and "house of prayer." ' ' The later Isaiah declares, that the sacrifices of hoth Hebrews and strangers will, in a happier age, be offered in the Temple, because this will then be called "a house of prayer for all nations." '^ in the long address of Solomon, at the con- secration of the newly-built Temple, he often and emphatically mentions the prayers,'^ but only once and obscurely hints at the sacrifices of the worshippers, ^* a proof that the former must have constituted a com- mon and ordinary mode of devotion. Strangers even came to pour out their supplications, and entered the sacred precincts, certain of being graciously accepted by God. *^ On some occasions, the sacrifices are distinctly recorded to have been attended with prayers or invocations, ^"^ on others with songs, music, and psalms of praise. '"^ Among the ordi- nary functions of the Levites is enumerated "standing every morning to praise and to extol the Lord, and so also in the evening." ^ ^ After the exile, the Israelites were in the habit of offering up prayers while the fumi- gations with the sacred incense took place in the Holy ; * ■* and they performed their daily devotions in the Synagogues at the times fixed for the regular sacrifices in the Temple. Josephus sets it down as a common duty incumbent upon all sacrificers to pray not only for their own, but for the general welfare. However, it is more than probable that prayers were, for many ages, left to the option and impulse of the worshipper. It was certainly very long before they were fixed in for- mulas such as have been handed down by tradition. One of them, asserted to have been uttered by the offerer of an expiatory sacrifice during the act of imposition, runs thus : "0 Lord, I have sinned, I have offended, 1 have transgressed, I have done this and that ; but now I return to Thee in repentance, and may this victim be my expiation." Another and similar prayer is attributed to the High-priest on the Day of Atonement, before he sent away the scape-goat, and one before he slaugh- tered the bullock for the expiation of himself and his house. While 9 Ps. CXLI. 2; coinp. XXVI. 6, 7. 2 Chr. XXX. 22; Ps. LXVI. 13—20; 9 Jon. II. 9. CXVI. 13, 17 ; CXVIII. 1—29 (see ver. 10 2 Chroii. VII. 12. 27); Bar. I. 10, 11. 11 Isai. LVI. 7. 12 Isai. I. c. i' 2 Chr. XXIX. 2(i— 30; comp. Jud^'. 13 Comp. 1 Ki. VIII. 28—30, 33, 35, XXI. 21 ; 1 Sam. I. 15; Am. V. 22, 23; 38, 42, 44, 45, 47—50, 52; sec also Ps. XXVI. 0, 7; XXVII. 6; L. 14, 15; 2 Chr. VI. 12—42. LXIX. 31 ; C. 4; Sir. L. 17—19. 14 Comp. 1 Ki. VIII. 31. 18 1 Chr. XXIII. 30 ; comp. XVI. 4— 6, 15 lKi.VIII.41— 43; 2Chr.VI.32,33. 8-30. 16 1 Sam. VII. 9; Job XLII. 8; Ezra i9 Luke I. 10; comp. Revel. VIII. 3, VI. 10; 1 Chr. XXI. 20; XXIX. 10—21; 4; V. 8; see p. 85. 128 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. the Israelites killed their paschal lambs in the Temple, the priests are said to have chanted the great praise consisting of Psalms CXIII to CXVIII. But independently of other arguments, the language of those formulas alone suffices to prove their post-Biblical origin. Indeed, suppli- cation formed, up to the time of the exile, no indispensable part of public worship, ' though, of course, prayers were addressed to God by individuals both for themselves and others, as necessity or impulse prompted, - till they became a regular, if not mechanical practice with fixed hours, generally three times a day, and appointed forms of supplication, pronounced with the face turned towards Jerusalem, and accompanied by prostration, bending of knees, stretching out and uplifting of hands, and were, to- gether with fasting, sometimes extended to the domestic animals, the chief exercise of piety. ^ It seems to have been usual for the officiating priest to pronounce a blessing upon the offerer;" but that blessing was no necessary or essential part of the sacrificial ritual. Similar accom- paniments of sacrifices were usual among most ancient nations. The Scythians offered up a prayer while felling the victim to the ground, the Egyptians either before killing or after flaying it; the latter, at the burning of the body beat themselves, as a mark of humiliation, while the Carian settlers in Egypt went so far as to express their submission by cutting their faces with knives. In Persia, the sacrificer, before the act of immolation, invoked the name of the deity, and prayed both for his welfare and that of the king and the nation ; while after the animal "i^Comp. Vitringn, De Syn. Vet. etc.), esp. XXII. 1—26 ; XXXV. 13 ; LV. pp. 50—52; the opposite assertion of 18; LXIII. 2—12; C. 1—5; CIl. 1, 2; Ewald (1. c. p. -18) cannot be sub- CXIX. 58, 164; CXLII. 1—8; CXLIII. stantiated. 1—12 ; Job XLII. 8 ; 1 Chr. XXIII. 30 ; 2 Comp. Gen. XX. 7, 17; XXIV. 12, 27; 2 Chr. XX. 6—13; and so among- the XXVllI. 22 ; XXXII. 10 — l.'i (comprising- Greeks and other nations, in abricfcompass nearlyallthe elements 3 See Ezra VIII. 21; IX. 5 — '15; of prayer — thanksg-iving, contrition, Neh. I. 4 — 11 ; IX. 1 — 37; XI. 17; Dan. and entreaty); Exod. VIII. 4, 5, 24, 25; VI. 11 (comp. 1 Ki. VIII. 48; Ps. LV. IX. 28, 33; X. 17, 18; XV. 1—18; XXXII. 18);IX. 3— 21; Esth. IV. 1, 2, 15, 16; 11-13; Lev. XVL 21 ; Nuni.X.35,36; 2 Chr. XX. 3,4; Tob.IH. 11— 15; XILS; XVI. 22 ; Deut. IX. 26—29 ; X. 10 ; XXI. Judith IV. 9— 13 ; VIIL 6 ; XIIL 7; 1 xMacc. 7,8; Josh. VII. 6— 9; Judg. VL36— 40; IV.30— 33; V. 33; Vn.40— 42; XL71; XVI. 28; 1 Sam. 1. 10, 12, 15; VIII. 6; 2 Mace. VIIL 29; XV. 26; Acts III. 1 ; XIL 19, 23; 2 Sam. VIL 18—29; 1 Ki. X. 9, 30; XXVIL 35; Matth.VL 5—13; VIIL 22—54, esp. vers. 30, 35, 38; X. 14; Luke IL 37; XVIIL 12; 1 Tim. XVII. 20 ; XVIIL 36, 37 ; 2 KL IV. 33 ; II. 1—8. VL 17, 18, 20; XIIL 4; XIX. 4, 15— 19; * Comp. 1 Sam. IL 20; 2 Sam. VI. XX. 2, 3; IsaL L 15; Jcr. XXIX. 7; 18; 1 Ki. VIIL 14, 55—61; see also XXXII. 16—25; Hos. XIV. 3; Jon. IL Lev. IX. 22, 23; Num. VL 23—27; 2—10; Hab. IIL 1—19; many Psahns iSam.IL 20; 1 Chr. XVI. 1 , 2 ; 2 Chron. (as Ill-X. Xn. XIII, XVI— XVIII, etc. XXX. 27; Sir. L. 17—19. X. 4. SACRIFICIAL CEREMONIES— IMPOSITION OF HAND. 129 had been slain and duly laid upon myrtle and laurel bunches, the Magi, holding in their hands a bundle of slender tamarisk rods with which they touched the flesh, chanted long hymns supposed to recount tho origin of the gods: indeed the Persians seem to have considered prayer the chief part of the sacrifice, and in itself the most acceptable oblation. The Greeks accompanied their offerings frequently with hymns of praise and with religious and solemn dances round the altar and the sacri- ficial fire; the invocation was generally pronounced at the killing of the victim; a sacrificial prayer from a work of Menander has been preserved to us: "Now let us pray to the Olympian gods, and now to all the Olympian goddesses, to give us safety, health, and all good things in future and full enjoyment of all present happiness." Pliny observes, with regard to the Romans, "It is a general belief that, without a certain form of prayer, it would be unavailing to immolate a victim, and that without it the gods would be consulted to no purpose" ; nay the omission or improper performance of the prayer was supposed to be most ominous and often portentous. Therefore, in order to prevent hesitation or faultiness in the recital, a priest read from a book the prayer, which the sacrificer repeated after him word by word. And both among the Greeks and Romans, the sacrificial act was occasion- ally accomplished with the shrill sounds of the Phrygian pipe, partly to add solemnity or cheerfulness to the ceremony, and partly to prevent any irrelevant or inauspicious words being heard during the sacred rites; just as men veiled their heads during prayers, lest they beheld anything unlucky. 5. Killing thf Animal. The offerer, after having signified by imposition of the hand his intimate relation to the victim and his readiness to surrender it to God \ in his stead, forthwith proved and sealed this readiness by at once ' killing the animal at the sacred altar. The worshipper was designedly permitted to perform the act of imniolation, that the offering might clearly be marked as his own; and it was therefore entrusted to one of the elders of the people, if the sacrifice was presented in the name of the community.^ This privile^^e alone was left to the Israelites to remind them that they were designed to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." It would scarcely have been prudent on the part of the com- pilers of the Pentateuch wholly to exclude the people from all parti- cipation in the sacrificial ceremonies which they had so long performed 5 Lev. IV. 15. At the consecration cause he acted throughout lliat cere- of Aaron and his sons, Moses killed mony as the direct inslrunient of God the victims (Lev. VIII. 15, 19, 23), be- (see Comm. in loc). K 130 A. THE TRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. as of uatural right; such immoderate ambition would probably have provoked a dangerous reaction, which not even the growing power of the tribe of Levi would have been able to resist. The Law is therefore in harmony with the Talmudical canon that the duties of the priests commenced with the act of receiving the victim's blood; and that, therefore, the killing might be lawfully performed by any one. ' With this rule corresponded, in bloodless offerings, the law that the sacerdotal functii»ns began with the act of taking off a handful to be burnt on the altar as a memorial, while the Israelite poured over and mixed the oil himself. However, priests were permitted to slaughter the animals for the offering Israelites; 2 they did so regularly with respect to the purification-offering of the leper, ^ or when the victims were presented in the name of the whole people, whether on Sabbaths and festivals or on other occasions;^ and they invariably killed the pigeons and turtle- doves by wringing or wringing off their head;^ several reasons seem to have suggested this last exception; first because in such cases the ritual was so simple that it could scarcely be divided between the worshipper and the priest;*^ especially as the blood of those birds is so scanty that it could not well be sprinkled or pressed out on the altar, unless so disposed of at once by the person who killed them, without being previously received in a vessel; and then because it was deemed desirable to enhance the value of the small sacrifice of fowls, often presented by poor people as a substitute for more expensive animals, by confiding its performance exclusively to the holy ininisters of God. How far the act of slaying the victim represented the life and death of the offerer will be pointed out in another place;" it here concerns us to observe that even the mode of killing had, in many instances, undoubtedly a symbolical significance. So if the Greeks or Komans offered a victim to an Olympian god, the head was turned upward and cut with the sacrificial knife from above downward ; while the head of ani- mals dedicated to the lower gods, to heroes, or to the dead, was turned downward to the ground, and cut from below upward ; in the latter case, the blood was poured into a pit dug for the purpose. The Greeks generally stunned and felled the victim to the ground by strik- ing its temples with an oak club; but this was distinct from the proper slaughtering, which was usually performed by cutting the sinews of the neck with a sharp axe, and which formed the essential » Lev. 1. 5 ; III. 2 ; IV. 2^ , 20, 33 ; see 4 Comp. also 2 Chron. XXIX. 22—24 ; also VIII. 15. Ezra VI. 20. 2 Comp. 2 CI. ion. XXX. 15—17; 5 Lev. I. 15; V. 8; see Sect. XIII. 3; XXXV. 10, 11. XV. 6 See Lev. L 14-17, and 3 Lev. XIV. 13, 25. notes in loc. 7 See Sect. XVIIL X. 5. SACRIFICIAL CEREMONIES -KILLING. I'M part of the ceremony, for by that slaughtering only which made the blood gush forth, the soul or the life of the victim was surrendered. And similarly among the Romans, an inferior official or assistant first struck the victim with a hammer, after which the priest slaugh- tered it with a knife. Some tribes seem to have abstained from the use of iron instruments in killiiJg- sacrificial animals, apparently for the same reasons which induced others to avoid them in the construc- tion of altars. Plato in his mythical description of primeval customs mentions that the animals intended for victims on solemn occasions were caught "without iron, with staves and cords", though they were apparently slaughtered in the usual way. The Magi in Cappadocia called pyraethi or fire-kindlers, "did not perform the sacrifice with a knife, but beat the victim to death with a log of wood as with a mallet." The Scythians and Indians strangled or suffocated the animal, "that nothing mutilated, but only that which is entire, might be offered to the deity." The Syrians in Hierapolis threw the wreathed victim over the terrace in the court of the temple, and killed it by the fall; while on some occasions, as on the "Festival of Torches", it was suspended on trees within the precincts of the temple and burnt alive. Similarly at Patrae in Achaia, on the festival of Artemis Laphria, pigs, stags and roes, wolves and bears, young and old, and every kind of eatable birds were cast alive into the flames. The Trojans sacrificed horses to Poseidon by throwing them alive into the waves ; and the old Rhodians did the like in honour of Helios. It is uncertain whether the Hebrews adopted any peculiar rite or observed fixed rules in slaughtering the victim; but the regulations laid down in the Talmud are unquestionably of later growth ; they all aim at causing the death of the animal in the most natural and least painful or violent manner, so that it might not even remotely fall under the category of a "torn animal" ; and they strictly kept this object in view- that all the blood should completely stream out of the body, and that none of it should be lost; for it was forbidden as food, but indispensable for atonement. Guided by similar views, the old Teutons struck the lieart of the victims, whether these were men or animals, because the heart is the fountain of the blood, and the blood of the heart was pre-emin- ently regarded as the blood of sacrifice. 6. Receiving of the Blood. When the blood streamed out of the dying victim, the utmost care was taken by the officiating priest, clad in his holy vestments, to re- ceive it, at the same side of the altar where the slaughtering had been K 2 132 A. THE PRINCIPAL SACRIFICES. performed, iu a vessel of rather large dimensions, which he held in his right hand and was specially appropriated to the purpose. It was deemed so all-important that no part of the blood which is the life and soul of the animal, should be lost or wasted, that the Law deviated from a fundamental principle at the offering of birds, by directing the killing to be performed by the priest instead of the offerer. But the act of receiving the blood was on no account permitted to the Israelite; it was by tradition, and no doubt in accordance with the spirit of the Law, strictly regulated ; it was illegal, if performed by a non-Levite or an uncircumcised person, or by the priest or High-priest without a full array of priestly garments, or in a state of total or partial unclean- ness, or by a common priest who, on that day, had been thrown into 1 mourning; for it was the direct preliminary to that ritual, in which the whole sacrificial ceremonial centred, namely 7. The Sprinkling of the Blood. This was the exclusive privilege of "the priests, the sons of Aaron." ' It was invalid if attempted by any one not belonging to that elected family. Only when Moses initiated his brother with his sons into their sacred functions, he himself, the Levite, sprinkled the blood, because on that exceptional occasion he officiated as chief priest.- In- deed if an intercessor between God and the Israelite was at all deemed desirable, he was properly employed for that special act. For it not only formed the weightiest of the rituals without which the sacrifice was not considered accomplished, but it involved the chief means of atonement, and was, therefore, justly termed "the kernel of the offering." It was rigorously and carefully performed in all animal sacrifices of whatever class. Its eminent significance is manifest: in burnt- and expiatory offerings it typified contrition and atonement ; in thank-offerings, humility and submission. For the blood represented the life and existence of the animal which man offered to God either as a substitute for his own life forfeited by sin, or as an oblation of gratitude and praise for benefits received. ^ Hence it was sprinkled either on the brazen, or the golden altar, or the mercy-seat, that is, on the most important and most characteristic implements of the three