the custom practised in those times all over the world, and the religion common to all nations, for ' various kinds of animals to be sacrificed in the temples in which images were placed, and for all persons to prostrate themselves and burn incense 'to those images. There were also certain ministers 'devoted and appointed to the worship which was 'celebrated in the temples erected in honour of the sun, the moon, and the stars: which things we ' have treated of before. Wherefore the divine wis'dom and providence, which is displayed in all 'created things, would not command the total dis'continuance and abolition of all those forms of religion; because the nature of man, ever prone to that to which it has been accustomed, would have ' revolted at such an injunction. And indeed this 'would have been just such a precept as if any pro'phet, professing a concern for the honour of God, 'were to come to us in the present age with the fol'lowing address: God warns you not to pray, or to 'fast, or to implore his aid in times of affliction; 'but that your religion must be wholly confined to 'the thoughts of your minds, and not be discovered ' in your actions.-On this account, therefore, God ' retained the forms of religion which had been pre'viously used, and transferring them, from created objects and fictitious things destitute of all reality, 'to his own venerable name, commanded us to per'form them to himself."* Maimonides is followed by Rabbi Shem Tob in his commentaries on this passage, and likewise by a man deeply versed in Jewish learning, Isaac Abarbinel; who, after having defended the opinion of Maimonides against Nach

*Mor. Nev. par. 3. c. 32.

manides, concludes the discussion in the following manner. 'You see, therefore, that the opinion of 'Maimonides has a very solid foundation in the law, ' and in the prophets, and in the hagiographa, and in 'all the sayings of the rabbies that are either recol'lected or recorded; and that his language on this subject is not vain, but consistent with piety."

6

X. But whatever credit is due to these considerations, which so many learned men have esteemed the causes of the ancient rite of sacrificing being transferred into the Mosaic covenant;† it is beyond all

* In Præfat. ad Levit.

TR.. The reasoning employed in a preceding note, against the supposition that sacrifices were originally of human invention, will also serve to expose the unreasonableness of considering the Hebrew ritual as an imitation of forms and ceremonies practised in Egypt, or a condescension to habits and prejudices contracted by the Israelites in that country. There can be no need of resorting to Egyptian ingenuity for the archetypes of rites enjoined by Moses. That a notion so degrading to his system, and so dishonourable to the authority by which he acted, could ever be adopted by any believer in the divine legation of the Jewish lawgiver, is truly astonishing. A notion so improbable in itself requires the most positive and unequivocal evidence to justify its admission. But of such evidence it is entirely destitute. Its most learned advocate, it was long ago observed by the learned Shuckford, is able to produce no one ceremony or usage, 'practised both in the religion of Abraham or Moses, and in that of the ' heathen nations, but that it may be proved that it was used by Abraham or Moses, or by some of the worshippers of the true God, earlier than by any of the heathen nations.' Connect. vol. I. p. 317. And that the

Divine Author of the Jewish code imitated the customs of idolaters who had imitated and corrupted the true religion of the patriarchs, is a proposition the mere statement of which seems sufficient to ensure its rejection. But the adoption of this hypothesis by any who admit the divine authority of the New Testament as well as the Old, is still more extraordinary. The New Testament represents the law as preparatory to the gospel, and the rites of Judaism as typical of Christianity. Hence it will follow, that if the law of Moses was a compliance with heathen notions and customs, the gospel of Jesus Christ must be the same. This inference is unavoidable. Nor is it a consequence merely charged upon the hypothesis by its opponents, and acknowledged by none of its advocates. Archbishop Tillotson expressly avows it: With these notions' (of sacrificial atonement) God was

doubt that the particular design of God in instituting the Mosaic sacrifices, was, by those sacrifices, to shadow forth the great Sacrifice of Christ.

Hence the apostle to the Hebrews, comparing the Jewish sacrifices with the sacrifice of Christ, says, "the law had a shadow," that is a type, "of good

things to come." Hence he compares the holy of holies in the tabernacle with the highest heaven, the high priest of the Jews with Jesus Christ our high priest, and their sacrifices, especially those offered on the day of expiation, with the great sacrifice of Christ, as shadowy types with antitypes, as earthly things with those which are heavenly. And hence some particular rites were appointed in relation to the principal victims, in order to represent some principal eircumstances in the sacrifice of Christ. Because Christ was to be put to death without the walls of Jerusalem, of which the camp of the people was an emblem; it was therefore directed that the principal sacrifices of the Jews should be burned without the

:

* pleased to comply so far, as, in the frame of the Jewish religion, to ap'point sacrifices to be slain and offered up for the sinner.—A great part of 'the Jewish religion and worship was a plain condescension to the general apprehensions of men concerning this way of appeasing the deity by sacrifice and the greatest part of the pagan religion and worship was ⚫ likewise founded upon the same notion.-And with this general notion ' of mankind, whatever the ground or foundation of it might be, God was pleased so far to comply, as once for all to have a general atonement 'made for the sins of all mankind, by the sacrifice of his only Son.' But that the system of the gospel, in which Jehovah is declared to have ❝ abounded in all wisdom and prudence," which is described as an object of eternal decrees and the consummation of preceding economies, which is represented as exciting the curiosity of angelic minds and affording them new discoveries of "the manifold wisdom of God;"-that this system was framed in compliance with the notions of erring heathens, who had "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the "creature more than the Creator," is a notion equally repugnant to reason and dishonourable to revelation."

li

camp: and because Christ, who is both high priest and sacrifice, was not to enter into heaven without his own blood having been first shed, hence it was provided that the Jewish high priest should not enter into the holy of holies without the blood of the sacrifices. But these things are to be discussed more at large in subsequent parts of this work. In prosecuting the other branches of the subject, we are to treat,-first, of the places appropriated to sacrifices; -secondly, of the ministers of sacrifices;—and lastly, of the sacrifices themselves, and the rites performed upon them. them. When these points shall have been discussed, it will be easy to demonstrate what was the proper efficacy and design of sacrifices.

31

CHAPTER II.

The Places used for offering Sacrifices.

THE places in which sacrifices might be lawfully offered present three principal subjects for examination: first, the places themselves; secondly, the sanctuaries, courts, altars, rooms, and other parts which they contained; thirdly, their nature and design.

Before the tabernacle was erected at the immediate command of God, it was lawful to perform religious ceremonies in any place, and consequently in those little shrines which, from their being built in elevated situations, are generally called "high places."* After the erection of the tabernacle this was forbidden to the Jews. For as long as that tabernacle, the depository of the ark, stood in the midst of the congregation, which was the case in the wilderness, or was fixed in any other more permanent situation, all victims were to be brought thither, and there they were to be sacrificed in the manner prescribed.† To this purpose are the following observations of Jewish writers. While the people were in the wilderness, 'it was provided by the law, that no one should offer 'sacrifices in the high places; but this law ceased when they came to Gilgal, where, as there was no 'fixed or certain situation for the tabernacle, the people were separated into various places. But on the building of the sanctuary at Shiloh, which was reared with stone walls though it was covered with 'curtains, the same law that had been in force in the 'wilderness became binding again. For in this place the ark had a fixed and certain station.

6