mals, nor the sacrificial rites, were all the same in the religion of the Israelites as in that of other nations. God made a great selection, both of things and of rites, for his sacrifices. Thus he indulged in some measure the disposition of the people, and opposed the corrupt inclinations which would carry them away into strange superstitions.

IX. These are considered, by ancient as well as modern writers, as the reasons which induced God to enjoin the rite of sacrificing upon a people unacquainted with heavenly things. Thus Justin Martyr: Accommodating himself to that people, 'God commanded them to offer sacrifices to his name, that they might not fall into idolatry. Tertullian: Let no one censure the burdens of sacrifices, and the troublesome niceties of operations ' and oblations, as though God really required such 'things for himself, who so explicitly expostulates, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacri'fices unto me? Who hath required this at your 6 hands?". But let us observe the constant care of 'God by which he designed to attach to his religion

6

a people prone to idolatry and transgression by

' ceremonies similar to those practised in the super'stition of the age; to call them away from it, by commanding those ceremonies to be performed to ' himself as if necessary to him, lest they should fall 'into idolatry.'-Origen: God, as he says by ano'ther prophet, "eats not the flesh of bulls, nor drinks the blood of goats." And as it is written in another

C

place "I commanded thee not concerning sacrifices 'or burnt offerings in the day that I brought thee out

' of the land of Egypt."

* Contra Tryphon.

But Moses enjoined these

+ Adv. Marcion. Lib. 2. cap. 18.

'things upon them for the hardness of their hearts, and ' in consideration of the very evil customs to which they had been habituated in Egypt, that as they could 'not refrain from offering sacrifices, they might offer them to God, and not to demons.'*-And Chrysostom: Think it not unworthy of God that the Magi were called by a star: thus you would dishonour every thing among the Jews, the sacrifices, the purifications, the new moons, the ark, and the temple ' itself; for all these things derived their origin from ' heathen stupidity. But in order to save those who 'were going astray, God suffered himself to be worshipped by these things with which other na'tions worshipped demons; correcting them a little, ' that by gradually withdrawing the people from their ' former custom he might conduct them to superior 'wisdom.' The same opinion was maintained, as Spencer has observed, by Cyril of Alexandria, by Jerome, by Isidore of Pelusium, and other ancient writers. They are followed, among other moderns, by the very learned Grotius. He says: As the 'ends of sacrifices were various, which you may find ' in Arnobius and Jamblichus, and partly in Macro'bius, so also were the rites connected with them; 'which were either derived from the Hebrews by other nations, or, which is more probable, being used by the Syrians and Egyptians, were corrected 'by the Hebrews, and adopted by other nations ' without that correction."§

Nor have these sentiments been held by Christians only, but also by some Jews. They are maintained in the following passage of Maimonides. It was

Homil. 2. in Numer.
Dissert. de Ur. et Thum. c. 4. s. 7.

+ Homil, 6. in Matth.

§ In Levit. i.

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 discontinuance 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 prophet, professing a concern for the honour of God,

6

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 previously 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.'*

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

66

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 circumstances 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 dishonourale to revelation."