On these grounds it is maintained, that we cannot refer the origin of sacrifices to an explicit command from heaven, but are to refer it to a natural impulse of the soul. It is an instinctive sentiment, that worship should be paid to the Almighty, that his universal dominion should be reverently acknowledged. It is an equally instinctive sentiment, that the fittest form in which this worship can be paid is the sacrificing, with appropriate rites, of whatever each one holds most precious. The words of Moses: "It came to pass, in process of time, that Cain offered," etc., are in agreement with this mode of arguing. The expression, process of time," refers to the end of the harvest which Cain had gathered, and, in the instance of Abel, to the time in which his flocks were enlarged by fresh births, when each judged that a portion of the gifts bestowed on him by the Almighty should be offered in sacrifice. In the different feelings by which the minds of the two brothers were actuated, we are to find the reason of the approbation and the displeasure with which their sacrifices were respectively regarded by the Almighty.

These considerations in favour of the human origin of sacrifices, seem to have had so great an influence on the mind of a large portion of the church fathers as to lead them to discard the idea of a divine commandment. Chrysostom, for example, commenting on the words: "It came to pass in process of time," etc., affirms that nothing except a suggestion of his own reason and conscience could have led Cain to offer such a sacrifice. In allusion to Abel, it is said, that he had no teacher, no guide nor counsellor, but, prompted by his own conscience and by the wisdom given to men from heaven, he was led to the performance of sacrifices. And yet again, Chrysostom affirms, that not as being taught by any one, not from obedience to any express statute, but by the dictate of his own reason, by the operation of a natural conscience, Abel was persuaded to offer true sacrifices."

Similar views are entertained by Jewish writers. Rabbi Levi Ben Gerson, in commenting on the fourth chapter of Genesis, thus remarks: "Cain and Abel were pre-eminently wise men, and therefore when they reached the end of their labours, each one offered to God a portion of the good things which he had accumulated; and, as it seems to me, the principle on which these sacrifices rested, was this, that God was the Creator and Preserver of everything that existed, and that consequently such sacrifices were a fitting acknowledgment of God's dominion, and a suitable token of gratitude." Isaac Abrabanel affirms, that

b Homil. 12.

"Adam and his sons offered sacrifices to God because they judged this a proper mode of honouring and worshipping God."

Eusebius of Cæsarea gives a somewhat modified, but yet not substantially different, view. The origin of sacrifices, he does not think, was fortuitous, nor yet due to mere human reason. Inasmuch, he affirms, as pious men who were incessantly with God, and had their minds illuminated by the Holy Ghost, saw that there was a necessity for some instrumentality by which mortal sins could be expiated, they judged that a sacrifice to God, the giver of life and of the soul, was the true means of reaching this end; and since they had nothing better than their own souls, which they could consecrate to God, they sacrificed beasts in the place of their souls.

3. Origin of Jewish sacrifices.-Although the question of the origin of sacrifices in general must be allowed to be still undecided, we may, without any doubt, refer to the command of God the origin of those sacrifices which were in use among the Jews. Into the reason of the divine command, in relation to these sacrifices, we shall now inquire.

And upon this point, the Jewish writer Moses Maimonides pertinently suggests, that there is nothing in the religious rites which accompany sacrifices in itself pleasing to Jehovah. This is sufficiently plain from the words, 1 Sam. xv. 22—" Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings as in obeying the voice of the Lord?" and from the language of Jehovah in the book of Isaiah: "I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts." These passages indicate that there was ground in the nature of things for the requirement of spiritual obedience; there was a factitious reason only for the requirement of sacrifices. Obedience is essentially pleasing to Jehovah; sacrifices, separate from obedience, are not at all pleasing.

Yet the reasons which led to the institution of the Jewish sacrificial ritual, were far from being unimportant. The view taken of this subject by ancient Christian writers was, that this form of religious service had been with the Hebrews, previously to the migration from Egypt, much in use, and that their attachment to it had become very deep. This form of religious service, the sons of Adam, Noah, Abraham, had all employed. Sacrifices had also prevailed among the Egyptians. The fondness of the Israelites for sacrificial observances, thus contracted, could not with safety be at once suppressed. Nor yet, as superstition was ever liable to make inroads among the people, could this fondness be allowed to operate in any other ways than such

De Demonstrat. Evangel., lib. i., c. 10.

as God should expressly enjoin. If it had been suppressed by statute, so great was the power which it had gained, it would almost inevitably have broken out in sacrifices to false gods. And unless this fondness had been restrained and regulated by divine injunctions, it would speedily be deformed by the admixture of every sort of barbarous and incongruous ceremony. With a view to the prevention of these evils, God directed the transfer, to his own worship, of the custom of sacrifices, as one which could neither be abolished with safety, nor yet be allowed to exist without careful restraint and regulation. Thus God, to a certain extent, indulged the wishes of the people, and, at the same time, aimed to counteract those wayward dispositions by which the people were liable to be drawn aside into degrading and criminal superstitions.

We cite, in confirmation of these remarks, the words of Chrysostom: "God, with a view to the salvation of those who were disposed to err, allowed himself to be worshipped by the Jews in similar modes, by the use of similar rites, to those by which pagan nations were in the habit of adoring their false divinities; modifying, correcting these rites, indeed, in some measure, and designing thereby to conduct his chosen people gradually to a purer and higher wisdom."

The language of Justin Martyr is to the same effect: "God," he says, "accommodating himself to the weaknesses of the people, directed them to offer sacrifices to his name, lest they should worship false gods." So also Tertullian: "The burden of sacrifices, and rites, and oblations, and the scrupulosity attending them, let no one blame," he says, "as if God desired them for their own sake. But let all see, in these things, the care of the Divinity to bind to his worship a people prone to idolatry and to the transgression of his laws, and to guard them from sacrificing to graven images."f

The opinions of Jewish writers are to the same effect. They conceive the custom of sacrificing to the Supreme Being to have been of such wide extent, and the propensity to its indulgence so vehement, that God, in accommodation to it, allowed and even commanded numerous sacrificial observances on the part of his ancient people, otherwise the people would have relapsed into idolatrous practices without check. Maimonides, after alluding to the almost universal prevalence of sacrifices, goes on to say, "that on this account God was unwilling to enjoin the entire disuse of sacrifices among his chosen people, men being always

d Homil. 6, on Matthew.

e Contra Tryphon. f Adversum Marcionem, lib. ii., c. 18.

reluctant to abandon that to which they have been long accustomed. And indeed a precept of this sort at that time would have been of the same effect as if a prophet, designing the honour of God, should now arise and assert that God forbids men to pray, or fast, or implore his help in time of trouble, on the ground that religion lies wholly in the thoughts of the heart, and is entirely independent of all outward deeds. God, with a better wisdom, retained in use the forms of religious observance which had previously prevailed, and transferred them from created and imaginary objects, such as had in themselves neither truth nor value, to the worship of his own name."

Whatever degree of confidence may be placed in these suggestions, God unquestionably instituted the Jewish ritual with the design of foreshadowing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Hence the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, comparing these Jewish sacrifices with the sacrifice of Christ, says, that the law had a shadow of good things to come. It was a type. Hence it is that he compares the innermost apartment of the tabernacle with the heaven of heavens, the high-priest of the Jews with Christ the great high-priest, and the sacrifices in general and particularly those in the day of atonement, with the great sacrifice of Christ, as types with their antitype, as earthly things with heavenly. In relation to the principal sacrifices, there were certain rites which were emblematic of the more particular features of the sacrifice of Christ. As Christ was put to death without the walls of the city, of which city the camp of the host in the desert was a designed emblem; so was it enjoined that the principal piacular victims should be burned without the camp. And because Christ did not pass into the heavens without the shedding of his blood, he being at once high-priest and sacrificial victim, so was it carefully provided for that the earthly high-priest should not pass into the holy of holies without the shedding of blood.

4. On the places appointed for sacrifices.—In respect to the places in which worship, whether in the form of sacrifice or otherwise, was to be rendered to the Supreme Being, we are to observe that before the sacred tabernacle was built, it was lawful to employ any place for this purpose. This freedom, however, was restrained after the building of the tabernacle. As long as that tabernacle, the receptacle of the ark, was placed either in the midst of the camp, as was the case in the desert, or as afterwards in Palestine, was lodged in any city as a fixed seat, thither all victims for sacrifice were to be led. Jewish writers, Abrabanel

& More Nevochim, part iii., c. 32.

and Levi Ben Gerson, thus speak on this subject: "While the Israelites were in the wilderness, it was enjoined in the law that no one should sacrifice in high places. But when the host had reached Gilgal, the strictness of this law was somewhat relaxed, because at that time there was no fixed place assigned to the tabernacle. As soon, however, as the sanctuary was built at Shiloh, the former strictness was revived. Afterwards, the ark being carried to Nob and to Gibeon, it became lawful to sacrifice in high places. Hence we find Samuel doing sacrifice in a high place (1 Sam. ix. 13). But this was never allowed after the building of the temple, the temple becoming the permanent resting-place of the ark of the covenant."

On the structure and arrangement of the tabernacle it is needless to descend to particulars. It was the peculiar seat of the symbolical presence of God; it was the earthly palace of the monarch of Israel. The whole structure seems to have been intended to exhibit this idea. The cover of the ark was God's seat. Above the seat were the two cherubim, an emblem of the servants and attendants of a monarch. The apartment in which these were placed was the audience-room. Here God was in the habit of meeting Moses and giving forth sacred oracles. In the outer apartment was the table of shew-bread, the golden altar, and the golden candlestick. In the court encircling the tabernacle was the altar of incense and the brazen laver. An analogy was meant to be preserved, in all these things, to the structure and furniture of a royal palace. The tabernacle and everything connected with it were, in accordance with this idea, denominated holy. They were wont to be anointed with holy oil, in token of the sanctity with which they were invested.

The tabernacle, which could be moved, comported with the migratory life of the Hebrews in the desert. No sooner, however, had they taken possession of Canaan, than a new institute of worship was planned, suited to the circumstances of a people of ample wealth and dwelling in permanent habitations. Ultimately the temple at Jerusalem was built, in accordance with this idea. It rested in the same principle with the tabernacle. There was an obvious analogy between the two in reference to their structure and arrangement. The great idea pervading both was, that they were the places in which God dwelt in a peculiar sense, as a sovereign in the midst of his subjects. This was the difference between the temple and the synagogue, and between the temple and all places of Christian worship. In the latter, God is only worshipped; in the former, he was not only

h On 1 Kings iii. 3.