DISSERTATION I.

ON ALL THE

SACRIFICES OF THE JEWS,

WITH REMARKS ON

SOME OF THOSE OF THE HEATHENS.

CHAPTER I.

Opinions and Arguments on the Origin of Sacrifices.

in

THE sacred scriptures abound with passages celebration of all the perfections of God, and especially of his Holiness. But this word is not always used in the same sense. Sometimes it denotes his perfect purity,* or constant and immutable choice of things consistent with rectitude, which is the meaning of St. Peter; "As he which hath called you is holy, so be

ye holy in all manner of conversation:"t-and sometimes it signifies that majesty which is discovered in every perfection; as in his infinite wisdom, uncontrollable power, and supreme and universal dominion: -attributes which entitle him to every kind of praise, and every species of worship. Thus holy is often equivalent to great, awful, venerable. This is the kind of holiness attributed to God by the sacred writers, whenever they call him "The Holy One of Israel," or declare that "his name is holy." For The Holy One of Israel designates that venerable deity who was to be the sole object of Israelitish worship; + I Pet. i. 15.

*I John iii. 3.

and the name of God is called holy, as deserving of being invoked with the highest reverence. This is taught in that passage of David,-" Let them praise. "thy great and terrible name; for it is holy;"*-where holy signifies worthy of veneration and praise.

The

II. From this twofold holiness attributed to God, arise two kinds of holiness belonging to some other beings. One of these is peculiar to beings endued with reason such is the holiness of those who conform their lives and wills to the will of God. other belongs to all those things which are separated from profane or common uses, and devoted to the purposes of religion. For the inviolable majesty of the creator, preserver, and governor of the universe, communicates a character of holiness, not only to persons, but also to things and times and places, and even to rites or ceremonies, particularly appropriated to God or his worship.

Among things possessing this kind of holiness, were anciently included sacrifices. This word is of Latin origin, and in that language, as far as I rememaber, generally signifies those rites by which any thing

was consecrated and offered to the Deity: yet, for want of another term to designate the oblations made, both of animals and of things inanimate, I am often obliged to use it, to denote also the things themselves about which those rites were employed. In this, however, I follow the example of Isidore, who says: There are two kinds of offerings, a 'gift and a sacrifice. Whatever is procured by silver or gold, or by any other purchase is called a gift. 'A victim, and whatever is burnt or laid upon an altar, is a sacrifice.'t

* Psal. xcix. 3.

† De Origin. Lib. VI. Cap. 19.

III. The first question that ought, if it were possible, to be determined by any one entering on the subject of sacrifices, is—whether they originally began to be offered in consequence of an express command of God, or merely from human choice. But this point being involved in great obscurity and difficulty, I think it will be better to state the arguments generally urged, or capable of being urged, on both sides, than to affirm any thing as certain respecting it.

Some are of opinion, that sacrifices were first a offered in obedience to the command of God himself. Nor is their persuasion at all shaken by the silence of Moses in his writings, respecting any such command. For, as he never attributes the origin of sacrifices to a divine precept, so neither does he ascribe it to the choice of the persons who offered them; but leaves the matter wholly undetermined. Nor is this omission, say they, at all to be wondered at; since there must have been many and great events, of which the extreme brevity adopted by him has admitted no mention to be made in his history. The prophecy of Enoch, the severe troubles of Lot, caused by the abominations of Sodom, the pious admonitions of Noah,* though noticed by other writers, are nowhere recorded by him. Nor, which is much more to the present purpose, has he mentioned the oblations of Cain and Abel with a view to state every thing relating to sacrifices, but only to represent them as giving occasion to Cain's hatred and murder of his brother: so that as he has merely touched on them in passing, there is the less reason to wonder at his total silence respecting their origin.

The advocates of this sentiment are accustomed to

Jude xiv. II Pet. ii. 5. 7, 8.

urge,

in the first place, that it never could have entered into the mind of a wise and holy man, like Abel, either that the slaughter of innocent animals and the smell of carcasses and entrails would be acceptable to God; or even that these services would evince the supreme reverence of his heart towards God, and his profound veneration of the divine sovereignty over life and death, unless God himself had instituted such rites by an express command: especially since (as they conceive) nothing was originally offered in sacrifice, except what was used for human sustenance, but the use of animal food most probably was not allowed before the deluge.* Nor is this the

The force of this argument constrained Grotius, a defender of the contrary opinion, to maintain that Abel's sacrifice cousisted, not of the members of slaughtered animals, but only of the milk and best fleeces of living ones. So he interprets the original words in Genesis iv. 4. Whether he has any followers in this sentiment, I know not.

TR.—This notion of Grotius was adopted by Le Clerc, but has justly been rejected by commentators in general, as altogether fanciful and absurd. Though is properly rendered milk in various passages of scripture, it cannot be shown to have that sense in any place which describes it as offered, or commanded to be offered, in sacrifice; and the use of the word in several other places justifies its being here translated the fattest. (Numb. xviii. 12. Psal. Ixxxi. 16. cxlvii. 14.)

בכרות Grotius asserts

to mean the best of the kind: but, though it is admitted that Abel's ob

;

any other

lation was of the best of his flock, this idea is conveyed in the word and no valid reason has been assigned for understanding wise than in its literal and radical sense of earliest or first born. Of wool, there is no pretence for saying, that the text makes any mention at all; and that Abel's "bringing of his flock" implies his "bringing" the wool "of his flock," is a mere conjecture without any foundation. As Cain's "bringing of the fruit of " the ground," confessedly means his "bringing" some "of the fruit of the ground;" so Abel's "bringing of the firstlings "of his flock," evidently signifies his "bringing" some "of the firstlings "of his flock." (Pooli Synops. in loc. Heideg. Exerc. v. s. 20. Kennicott's Two Dissert. p. 192–194. edit. 1747.) The version of this text may be further improved in simplicity and clearness by rendering the conjunctive even, instead of and. “ And Abel, he also brought (some) of "the firstlings of his flock, even of the fattest of them."

only argument of those who believe the first sacrifices to have been commanded by God: they adduce to the same purpose the assertion of an apostle, that

by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent "sacrifice than Cain :"* and nothing, they say, is done "by faith," but what is done by the direction of God himself.

IV. But there are others, who, so far from thinking that the faith of Abel here commended had its foundation in any express command of God, consider this passage as rather authorizing a contrary conclusion. For, if Abel offered sacrifices in obedience to a divine precept, what opinion must be formed respecting Cain? If his sacrifice was caused by the belief that God had given such a command, he evidently possessed the same faith as Abel himself: whereas the contrary appears to have been the fact. But, if he entertained no such belief, and without any express command of God, but from the dictates of his own mind, spontaneously sacrificed some of the gifts with which providence had favoured him;-if such was the conduct of Cain, a wicked man, influenced by the light of nature, how much more probably may Abel, a good man, be supposed to have done the same! These persons perceive but little force in the argument, that, without divine direction, Abel could never have supposed it would be acceptable to God for him to celebrate his power and goodness by religious rites and services involving the effusion of animal blood. Habituated as we have been to other customs and different modes of worship, we ought not, they say, at such a vast distance of time, hastily to decide what might possibly occur to the mind of Abel, especially

* Heb. xi. 4.