Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Indeed, if the chief study of the political advocates of the Church had been to make the people think religion all a cheat, they could not have taken better means. None but a divine religion could have stood in spite of such villanous supporters.*

But were it possible, by means of persecution and the stifling of knowledge, to preserve the appearance of a more universal acquiescence in the doctrines of religion, of how little real value would this be! The real value of religion must depend on its being the subject of individual choice and

which is the very means of giving it every valuable quality, necessarily supposes a certain proportion of doubt and unbelief;t which, moreover, where freedom of inquiry is allowed, is mainly instrumental in discriminating truth from falsehood, and in strengthening the evidence of the truth. Thus we have to take our choice between implicit faith or nominal belief-and a well-founded and rational belief in the majority with a certain proportion of scepticism, and that not without its uses, in the remainder.

The continuance of these persecutions is also enlisting the best feelings of the people against Christianity. Men of spirit naturally dislike and reject that which is forced upon them: and are induced to applaud and sympathize with those who suffer; the best part of whose character is certainly exhibited while under persecution.

On all these grounds, and many more which might be mentioned, it has become the duty of all friends of liberty, and especially of Christianity, firmly, but with due prudence and

[blocks in formation]

discrimination stating their reasons, to make their public protest against these renewals of persecution. R. T.

An Essay on the Nature and Design of Sacrifices under the Mosaic Law, and the Influence which Jewish Ideas and Language concerning them had upon the Language of the New Testament. By the late Rev. Henry Turner.

(Continued from p. 338.)

suffi

WE think that having now safeunder the Mosaic law cannot be proved (from any indications contained in the original records, describing their institution and attending ceremonies) to have had a vicarious import, and in all likelihood had none such, what remains for us to do, is first to make a few general observations on what may be conceived to be the real na ture and design of the institution of sacrifices under the Mosaic law; secondly, to inquire whether there is any antecedent plausibility in the sup position that they were intended to have a prospective reference to distant events, or, in other words, that they were typical of Christ; and, lastly, to account for the language of the New Testament respecting them.

In the first place, then, we propose to make a few general observations upon what may be conceived to be the real nature and design of the institution of sacrifices under the Mosaic law. This we undertake, the rather, because the supposed absence of any inherent meaning or propriety in it, such as can be conceived worthy of the Divine Being who appointed it, has been used as an argument for imposing a foreign and ulterior sense, which does not appear warranted by the original record, in which we should certainly expect to have the surest declaration of its true meaning. How irrational it is thus to argue, we have seen already.

Now it is obvious that the great purpose of the institution of sacrifice was to afford a method of visible and public worship, and that its various modifications, under the Mosaic law, included every different attitude and intention of mind with which men ever

2.

seek the presence of God. See Outram, lib. i. cap. x. How the offering of things, useful and valuable to man, came to be considered as a method of worship, it cannot, we think, be difficult to conceive. Let us take the simple record of the earliest sacrifice given in the book of Genesis. "Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof." What can more naturally express the thanks of these first sons of Adam for the Divine bounty which had blessed their labours with increase than these offerings? It is true, it was but giving God his own; he could not literally be served with such gifts: and, therefore, there are those who cannot see the propriety or even the innocence of this way of worship, unless it have some much more abstruse and remote signification. But, after all, what is there inherent in any acts of worship, however refined, spiritual, and raised above comparison with this primitive model of devotion, to make them serviceable and acceptable to God? It is to his condescension, and his desire of the improving holiness and final

Jam omni sacrificiorum generi cultûs sacri ratio inerat, Holocausta Deo immolabantur, ut omnium conditori, ac Domino, omniumque itidem conservatori, omnique cultu et honore digno; sacrificia salutaria ut eorum omnium, quæ ad vitam pertinent largitori, sive ea ante impetrata essent, unde ortum est sacrum eucharisticum, sive nondum impetrata, sed expetita; idque vel voto interposito, unde extitit sacrificium votivum, vel sine voto huncupato, unde ortum habuit sacrum voluntarium suâ cujusque sponte datum, merâque liberalitate factum -Jam verò sacra piacularia Deo facta sunt, ut Domino vitiis infenso, pœnæque, ac venia jus habenti. Quibus ex rebus intelligitur eódem spectâsse sacrificia, quò preces ore enunciatæ, gratiarumque actiones pertinent. Illud tamen interfuisse, quòd ejusdem utique voluntatis alia in precibus enunciatis, atque etiam in gratiarum actionibus, alia autem in sacrificiis signa externa adhiberentur. In illis scilicet explicata verba, in his sacri quidam ritus, quibus tamen eadem desideria, quæ verbis explicatis, subjecta erant.

safety of men, that they owe any of their fitness to please him. They are doubtless unworthy of him, and to beings raised to much higher degrees of spiritual understanding and knowledge, would appear infinitely so, did not their greater comprehension of mind enable them to perceive that their own acts of worship, though glorious beyond comparison with ours, accompanied with

the sound

Symphonious of ten thousand harps that tune

Angelic harmonies,

are still infinitely removed from giving honour worthy of the great Supreme to whom they are addressed. It is the part, then, of the Divine wisdom and grace to invite to such expressions of piety as he knows his creatures can comprehend. A wise parent will not check the first germ of grateful and generous sentiments in the infant mind for a defect or inaccuracy in the manner of expressing them. When the little child selects the rosied apple from the heap to give back to the presenter in return for the gift of the whole, would any one that had the least feeling of what is lovely refuse the offering, or ridicule its absurdity? Why, then, consider it as unworthy of God to meet the natural wants and wishes of the men to whom he had discovered himself as a Being all-pow erful to bless, or to destroy; and to invite them to express worship by presenting gifts? And if it be asked, what reason can be given why the gift was to be consumed in the act of being offered, and if it were an animal, to be slain? The reason is obvious, that

there was no other way of alienating them, and making them no longer the property of him who offered them. If the fruits of the ground had only been offered, and then not disposed of, they would either have withered, which would have been unseemly, or they would have been employed to made a mere mockery of the gift. If common purposes, which would have the firstlings of the flock had not been slain, they would have returned to their herd, and would have been as much as ever the advantageous property of the person who had solemnly given them away. Besides, the disappearance of the offering by the action

of fire, and the ascent of its savoury elements in the smoke, might designate God's acceptance of the gift. Judge, therefore, of the reasonableness of the following passage from the discourse before-mentioned (by Dr. Pye Smith, p. 6):

[ocr errors]

The worship by sacrifices" (says he) "has been alleged to be of the nature of a present by way of homage to the Supreme Being. On this supposition, must not the bloodless, innocent, and more natural offering of Cain, the fruits of the earth, be deemed more rational in itself, and more likely to be agreeable to the Deity than that of Abel, which appears revolting to the feelings of humanity, an useless waste of animal life, and as an act of worship manifestly absurd? But passing by the grossness of the invention, what conceptions must they form of the blessed God, who imagine that with such services he could be gratified?"

How sacrifices can be denied to be of the nature of a present, when the very name in Hebrew and in the language of every nation by whom they have ever been practised, and every just definition of them implies it, is surprising. And, then, as to Cain's offering being apparently more natural and rational than that of Abel, which is here described as apparently inhuman, useless and absurb, what can be meant by such extravagant expressions? Is it possible that one who is in the habitual practice of tasting animal food can find any thing so shocking and abhorrent from his nature, in viewing that waste of life which he considers as innocent when incurred for the gratification of his appetite, practised as an act of grateful and solemn homage to the Almighty Bestower? If Dr. Smith were to visit a slaughter-house, we doubt not but his tender sensibilities would be greatly shocked; but from these feelings does it follow that the use of animal food is criminal? He will not say so. To judge of Abel's feelings in such an occurrence, he should for a moment divest himself of the mild and gentle tone of feeling cherished by the immunities of a learned profession in the civilized walks of life, and should assume the sentiments of a shepherd and keeper of cattle in the simplest age of the world.

To return when gifts were thus made the method of approach to the Almighty, and the consumption of these gifts the act by which they were presented, it followed that sacrifices came to be considered as essential to the solemn worship of God; and were practised, whatever was the occasion on which men felt themselves called upon to address God in a solemn and express manner. For whatever was the occasion, the object desired was the favour of God, to which they knew no surer way, than by the performance of such an act as should substantially prove their gratitude, reverence and devout regard.

Such was the ceremony introduced as part of the ritual worship amongst the Jews: and if its general nature and design was at all modified by being adopted into the Mosaic institutions, it was in the following respects:

First, it was the principal agent in promoting and keeping up that separation of the Jews from every other people, which was so important a part of the Jewish economy. Nothing can so much separate nations from each other as a difference in religious institutions. And this object seemed capable of being sufficiently gained by merely reverting to those purer forms of worship which had gradually been forsaken by the world at large. Some nations were sunk into such ignorance as to worship the animals which had been used in ancient sacrifices, and to think the slaughter of them the greatest crimes. This was the case with the Egyptians; which is the reason of the saying of Moses, Exodus viii. 26, in reply to Pharaoh's declaration, that they should be allowed to perform their sacrifices in Egypt, "It is not meet to do so, for we shall sacrifice the abominations of the Egyptians to the Lord our God." And, perhaps, it is in reference to some Egyptian prejudices amongst the Israelites on this subject, that Moses says in the beginning of Leviticus, "If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock," de bubis et balantibus. See a passage from Moses Egypticus, in Outram, lib. i. cap. ix. § 1. And it was partly in pursuance of the same object that all the utensils made use of in Jewish worship were 66 sepa

rated" to that office by institutionary and annual sacrifices: that they might be holy in the eyes of the Israelites, but polluted and abominable in the eyes of all other people, so that they might never become the instruments of an abominable or foreign worship.

Secondly, since the commonwealth of Israel had that peculiar form of government called a Theocracy, religious ceremonies became almost identical with civil forms; and had a political as well as a moral meaning. Viewed in this light, the Tabernacle was a royal pavilion, the priests were ministers of state, and sacrifices were appointed ceremonies by which the people had admission to the kingly presence. Hence all the stated daily and weekly sacrifices were part of the state and pomp of civil government; and, again, the laws of purification prescribed in various cases were to hinder the appearance of any thing in so august a presence, that would be indecent or disrespectful.

Moreover, there are a few cases of moral transgression (of such a kind as are capable of coming before a court of law) in which, after ordinary legal damages are paid, it is required that a trespass-offering shall be made. It will not, perhaps, be thought trifling to describe this as a fine to the crown. For the further illustration of this view of the subject, see an excellent essay, "On the Meaning of the Atonement," &c. signed Eusebius, Theol. Repos. III. 385.

Thirdly, sacrifices under the Jewish law served for the support of the priests who had families, but were too much taken up with attendance upon the niceties of the ritual service, to have time for providing other means of support. This use of sacrifices, then, depends upon the expediency of having a distinct order of men to attend on these things, which will scarcely be disputed.

Lastly, sacrifices were in some cases appointed with the intention of securing the general health and safety. The priests were likewise the physicians of Israel; and those who had been attacked by infectious disorders, were to be subject to their examination, and by them be pronounced clean, and then submit to certain ceremonies and purifications for seven days, and finally to be presented at the door of the

tabernacle, and there make certain sacrifices, accompanied with rites indicative of cleansing. These prescribed rites were costly, and even the poor man, (though in sin-offerings allowed to substitute a small offering of flour,) was not here excused from offering a lamb, a tenth deal of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat offering, and a log of oil and two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get. Levit. xiv. 21, 22.

The tendency of this was to make the people extremely careful to practise such rules of cleanliness and temperance as should save them from such troublesome and expensive forms. Observe also, that the profit accruing to the priests from the performance of such ceremonies, would make them extremely vigilant and sharp-sighted in detecting the presence of those dangerous complaints, of which the symptoms are given with so much exactness in the 14th and 15th chapters of Leviticus.

The atonements and offerings required in purification of various other unclean states of body, (though in part they were probably designed to represent the necessity of moral purity, and the sinfulness of indulging wrong desires,) were principally devised with a view to considerations of health. The following observation is made by Grotius upon Levit. xv. 2: "Sciendum in Syriæ locis et vicinis non minus, Ty youoppaav, quam тa suuna habere aliquid contagione nocens; unde ista, legibus quæ a lepræ legibus non longi abeunt constriguntur." To this observation from Grotius, Dr. Outram subjoins the following sentence, Sed et ita forte significatum mortalia et immunda hominum corpora non nisi sacrificio aliquo (id quod autem est sacrificium Christi cujus hæc omnia figuræ erant) ad immortalitatem sacratum ivi.” And in a similar manner Dr. Magee argues, (No. 38, p. 337, Vol. I.) "It deserves to be considered," he says, "whether the pains of child-bearing, and all other diseases of the human body, (of which leprosy in the eastern countries was deemed the most grievous,) being the signal consequences of that apostacy which had entailed these calamities on the children of Adam, it might not," &c.

[ocr errors]

It is the prevalence of these gratui

tous and unfounded assertions which has made it necessary to give this subject so full and so minute a consideration. We proceed briefly to shew, that there is no authority for using such unnatural and fanciful interpretations; and having described that which we conceive to have been the real design and chief end of sacrifice under the Mosaic law, we go

In the second place, to inquire whether there is any antecedent probability in the supposition that sacrifices under the Mosaic law were intended to have a prospective reference to distant events, (or in other words,) do they appear to have been typical of Christ?

Our argument has hitherto been general, and to this effect: either to prove that there were other good and sufficient reasons for the institution of Jewish sacrifices, or else that there was no vicarious import in any of the Jewish sacrifices, or any of their adjunct ceremonies. My object, now, is to shew that it could not be inferred from any part of the Mosaic record that sacrifices were intended as types of future events, or that Christ was in any way expressed by them. I say inferred, for no one pretends to produce any positive declaration of this doctrine to be found in the books of Moses, or indeed in any part of the Old Testament.

A type, in the theological sense, is correctly defined, a divinely appointed symbol of any thing future; or an example so given and provided by God, as that by the nature of its institution it plainly prefigures that future thing. Futuri alicujus symbolum quoddam, aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum, ut ipsius planè instituto futurum illud præfiguret." Outram, lib. i. cap. 18, § 1.

[ocr errors]

Two things, then, are necessary to constitute a type: divine appointment of the thing as a symbol, and the futurity at the time of appointment of the thing typified. To apply this, sacrifice does not appear to have been a type of the death of Christ, or of the satisfaction of sins by his death; because we do not see that it was originally appointed for that purpose. If it had been the main, nay the only real object of that rite when first appointed to be a type of Christ, it would have been of more consequence

to record the divine institution of sacrifice, and the end for which it was appointed, than any other circumstance whatever connected with the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. But the institution of sacrifice is not on record, and we do not find it in any way combined with those passages in the Pentateuch, which are generally considered as having a prophetic reference to Christ.

If, as popular writers on theology assert, this rite of sacrifice was instituted immediately on the fall of man, to typify the future sacrifice which should be made as a satisfaction for sin by the death of Christ, why was not this expressed on that occasion when prophetic mention is made of Christ? What could have been more natural than for the Almighty, when he spoke of the "seed of the woman," to have connected with this prophecy the mention of that visible symbol of his death, and the satisfaction thereby afforded for sins, which it is affirmed that sacrifice was intended to afford?

Again, when Moses spoke of " the prophet like unto himself, whom God should raise up from the midst of Israel," if he spoke of the same person whose sacrifice it was the chief object of his institutions to typify, how natural, obvious and proper for him to have pointed out the connexion between his oral declaration, and the symbolical figures by which it was declared to the eye.

Secondly, the Old Testament is unfavourable to the notion that sacrifice was typical of Christ, in another respect, that its importance and efficacy are in various passages of Scripture studiously depreciated, and the strongest expressions used to shew its comparative insignificance. Now, as it is alleged that this Jewish ceremony occupied the precise place of the great sacrifice of Christ while the law lasted, it was to be expected that the holy writers under the law would have spoken of it with a portion of the same reverence and pious regard which is expressed by all who look upon the death of Christ as the proper original of sacrifice; and that however they might have blamed the error of those who forgot the true end of sacrifice, and "placed its efficacy in the naked rite as if aught accrued to God thereby," still they would have taken due

« AnteriorContinua »