Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

actions to which he refers were deemed parts of the worship of the heavenly bodies, which being placated by certain performances, or words, or suffumigations, granted their worshippers whatever they desired. And, therefore, it followed that, under the principles which we have exhibited, a pretension to astrological or magical powers, and the exercise of the corresponding acts and rites, was equivalent to an avowal of idolatry, and was hence to be capitally punished. And because such acts were very commonly performed by women, the law was careful to specify, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live;"* and because men are naturally inclined to exercise clemency to women, it was again expressly enjoined, "A man also, or a woman, shall be put to death."+ Here is particularity of specification with respect to women which, as Maimonides remarks, is not to be found either with regard to the profanation of the Sabbath or any other precept.

There were also many evils which the professors of magical and other such arts believed themselves able to avert through the powers of the heavenly bodies and other idols; among these were the expulsion of noxious animals, the protection of plants from injuries, the prevention of hail, and such like. Now it will be observed, that the evils which these persons professed to avert by their idolatrous arts, are the very evils which are, for the most part, denounced to the Hebrews as the punishments which idolatry would bring upon them.

To the prevention of idolatrous associations may also be attributed a variety of small regulations not easily explicable on other grounds. Among these is the prohibition to round the corners of the head" (i. e. to shave off the hair), or to "mar the corners of the beard;"§ because the priests among the idolaters were thus accustomed to poll and shave themselves. Maimonides alleges that the same reason exists for the precept which forbids the wearing of "garments mingled of linen and woollen," it having been customary for the priests of the idolaters to wear robes of mingled linen and wool, as well as to wear on their finger a ring of mixed metal; and this doubtless with reference to certain planetary or symbolical combinations, which were judged appropriate to the act or object of idolatrous worship. And as also there were acts of worship in which the priests of idols were obliged to wear the dresses of women, and others in which women wore the armour of men, it was comprehensively enjoined in the law that "the woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment."||

Many of the injunctions or prohibitions which bear on agricultural practices are supposed to be in the same manner levelled at idolatrous or superstitious practices, and designed for the discouragement of idolatry by rendering repugnant to the law some of those acts which it required. By these and similar prohibitions, a large class of idolatrous superstitions were rendered incompatible with the profession of obedience to the law; and could therefore only be practised in open disobedience to its commands. The good policy of this precaution, with such a people as the Hebrews, is unquestionable. This applies, indeed, to most of the prohibitions which have already been specified, as well as to some which we now proceed to notice.

The law which prohibits the use of the three first years' growth of fruit-trees, may very possibly have arisen from the circumstance that it was usual to offer one half of such first fruits to idols, and to eat the other half in the idol temples: for this reason also, as may be supposed, it was directed that the first fruits allowed to be used-those of the fourth year—were to be eaten before the Lord in the holy place. It appears also to have been very common to perform certain magical rites and sprinklings, with the view of causing the trees to blossom and bear fruit earlier than usual; and this prohibition may seem to have been partly intended to remove all occasion or temptation to such acts-as, of course, it was useless to attempt to accelerate the production of fruit which could not be eaten, especially as the trees in Palestine generally afford fruit naturally by the third year. The grafting one tree upon another of a different kind is forbidden in the law,** and apparently for similar reasons, as the

Exod. xxii. 18.

Lev. xix. 27.

+ Lev. xx. 27.

Deut. xxii. 5.

See, for example, Lev. xxvi. 22; Deut. xxxii. 24, xxviii. 33, 39, 40.
Lev. xix. 23, 25.
** Lev. xix. 19.

act suggested the symbolical accompaniment of most unseemly proceedings, by which, among the ancient pagans, the operation was disgraced and made abominable. On account of this also, it would appear that it was declared unlawful to mingle seeds, or to sow them together;* as well as because the heathen expected some particular benefits to the harvest or the vintage from such admixtures, which always had a symbolical reference.

There are some, indeed, who find in these regulations good rules for agricultural processes and effects. But the Hebrews could learn agriculture without being taught of God or of Moses. And it seems far more likely, and far more in unison with the great objects of the Mosaical law, that these operations were forbidden as common in their nature and design with other rites which the Gentiles believed to possess particular power and influence, and which, in various degrees, belonged to or tended towards idolatry.

On the same grounds the Hebrews were forbidden to cut their persons, as the heathen often did in the transports of their religious excitement, or of their grief: neither were they to mark their bodies with such stigmata as those which the heathen employed superstitiously, or for the purpose of marking themselves as the votaries of particular gods.† And not only were they thus carefully excluded from idolatry and all its circumstances, but they were excluded from having any doings about an idol in the way of business, or to receive anything belonging to an idol into their houses. And the reason is plain :-if a man received an idol, or something belonging to it, even for the purpose of breaking it up, he would be very likely to fall into a snare, if it happened that some good befell him while the "abomination" was in his house, or that he throve well upon the money which the sale of the broken up or melted materials produced.

That their oaths might not be taken in the name of false gods, it was directed that they should swear in the name of the Lord; but false or vain swearing by that great name were strictly interdicted.§ Blasphemy of that holy name was punishable with death, not only as an offence against God, but as an overt act of rebellion and sedition against him in his kingly character. And not only were idolaters, and those who invited to idolatry, individually to be punished with death; but if a town or city turned to strange gods, that town was to be considered as in a state of open rebellion against the authority of the sovereign, and it was the bounden duty of all the people, after careful inquiry, to subject that place to a solemn ban or curse, and utterly to destroy it as an accursed thing.¶

But stringent injunctions and prohibitions offered not the only considerations which were presented to the minds of the Israelites to keep them faithful to the God of their fathers. They were not only informed of the obligations of gratitude and obedience which all men owed to him as the Creator and Governor of the world, but were reminded of their peculiar and multiplied obligations by which they were themselves bound to devote themselves to him. They were accordingly commanded to love God with all the heart, and mind, and strength; not only as the governor of the universe, and the benefactor in numberless ways of all mankind, but to love him as their own especial deliverer and friend, from whom they had received so many distinguished favours and the promise of others in time to come. And as the result of such gratitude and obedience, they were required to obey his laws, and for this additional reason, that without such obedience they would not merit a continuance of the kindness of God, nor be worthy of receiving further benefits from his hands.**

ii. Rites and Institutions.-As our attention now turns to the survey of the rites and institutions which God judged suitable for the Hebrew people—and first, to those which were connected with his worship-we are arrested by a preliminary question of considerable interest, and by which much discussion has first and last been provoked. This is, to what extent the ceremonial observances, and especially the forms and apparatus of divine worship, were similar to those of the Egyptians; and if a similarity existed, whether the Hebrew or the Egyptian system should be charged with imitation of the other?

Deut. xxii. 9.

Lev. xix. 27, 28.

Lev. xxii. 11, et seq.

Deut. vii. 26. Exod. xx. 7, xxiii. 13; Deut. v. 11, vi. 13, x. 20. Deut. xiii. 12-18. ** Exod. xx. 2; Lev. xi. 45, xxv. 38; Deut. iv. 32-40, v. 24-28, vi. 4, 5, 12, 13, 20-25, vii. 6—11, viii. 1—6, 10—18, ix. 4, 5, x. 12, xi. 1, 13, 14, xxvi. 1—10, xiii. 4, 5, xxxii. 6. Jahn, sect. 137.

That a similarity did exist, in some particulars, was early discovered by those scholars who had made themselves acquainted with as much as could formerly be known (through the reports of Greek and Latin writers) of the Egyptian rites and institutions. Maimonides, although a Jew, and an ardent advocate of the divine origin and anti-idolatrous object of the Mosaical system, notices this similarity, and attributes a designed imitation to that system on grounds which he explains and justifies. The same view has been ably elaborated and sustained by various writers, among which are Sir John Marsham, and, above all, the eminently learned Spencer, in his great work 'De Legibus Hebræorum;' and after him by Moses Lowman and others.

Another class of Biblical divines seemed to start with pain at the idea of such an imitation, and consider it a point of religious duty to contend for the originality of every pin of the tabernacle, and of every thread in the dress of the high-priest. They have argued either that there was no such similarity in the opposite party alleged, or that, although some similarities may be found, they must be accounted for by the supposition that the Egyptians borrowed from the Hebrews; or that all the analogies which can be discovered were originally derived from patriarchal usages or tradition. On this side occur such names as those of Witsius, Meyer, and, more lately, of Dr. Woodward and Dr. Wait; and it may be observed that the views of the great majority of writers who have occasion to notice the question take this direction.

Now this question has continued to be argued entirely upon its original grounds. The advocates of the alleged imitation have gone on illustrating the arguments of Spencer, or adducing further proofs from eminent writers; and their opponents have proceeded copying Witsius, or following his line of argument and evidence,—both parties appearing to be utterly unconscious of the new sources of evidence which have been opened within the last fifty years, and by which the state of the question has been entirely altered, from one of argument to one of fact. These sources are found in the ancient paintings and sculptures of Egypt, which, as our readers are aware, exhibit, with great minuteness of detail, not only the usages of that extraordinary nation, in peace and in war, but portray all the rites and ceremonies of their religion, with all the acts which were performed, all the utensils which were employed, and all the dresses and ornaments which were worn by the Egyptian priesthood in the services of their gods. Now, with reference to this last class of subjects, it is clear that they must afford ample materials for settling the question as to similarity at least. For one who has made himself acquainted with the minute descriptions of the tabernacle, the utensils of worship, and the priestly attire, which are given in the books of Moses, will easily be able to recognise the resemblances or differences which the Egyptian monuments offer. The result will set the question at rest by establishing, beyond all further dispute, that very important similarities do exist, and can be denied by no one without betraying great ignorance of what he ought to know, we say ought, for surely every one ought to seek all attainable evidence on the question which he undertakes to decide.

That the similarity does, to a very considerable extent, exist, is very certain; but how that similarity was produced is another question. We see not, ourselves, how to avoid the conclusion that some Egyptian practices were admitted into the Hebrew ritual.

In the first place, the points in which analogies have been found are too numerous and too peculiar to have been the result of accidental coincidence.

They could not have been derived from the common origin of patriarchal practice; for that had no ritual from which such analogous usages could be transmitted.

Those who suppose that the Egyptians copied the similar practices from the Hebrews, fix upon the time of Joseph's power and popularity, as that when such imitation was most likely to have taken place. But it is forgotten that the Hebrews had then none of those ritual observances for the Egyptians to imitate, nor, indeed, till after they had left Egypt. It would be difficult to assign any subsequent date to the imitation. The Hebrew ritual, as exhibited in the wilderness, was not likely to be well known to the Egyptians; or, if known, was it at all probable that this proud and highly civilized people would imitate the ritual of their escaped

VOL. I.

2 G

bondsmen, against whom their minds were probably in a state of high exasperation? And, after the Israelites had entered the Promised Land, it was not until the time of Solomon that the Hebrew ritual exhibited a sufficiently imposing appearance to attract the attention of the Egyptians. The intercourse which then existed between the two countries, and the marriage of the Hebrew king to an Egyptian princess, would point to this reign as by far the most favourable date for such an imitation. But then-the sculptures and paintings from which we obtain the knowledge that analogies did actually exist, date much earlier than the time of Solomon-son -some of them, even earlier than the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. This, as we take it, is conclusive against any imitation of the Hebrew ritual by the Egyptians.

Such an imitation would indeed be most improbable on almost every ground on which it could be considered. The Egyptians were an old nation, long organised in all its institutions, including-we have not the least reason to doubt-its religious institutions and ceremonies, long before the Israelites received their ritual system; and since their hatred and absolute prohibition of innovation and change in all that they had organised has been in all time notorious, the supposed imitation would, à priori, be most unlikely, even were their relations with the Israelites equal and amicable, which they certainly were not.

As only visible things were capable of being so represented as to furnish that positive proof of similarity to which we have adverted, we shall not insist upon similarities which do not admit of this degree of proof; although, certainly, since the existence of these establishes the general principle of accommodation, the existence of other instances, not susceptible of the same kind of proof, becomes the more probable, when properly supported by other considerations.

We have now only to state the considerations which may be presumed to have determined that degree of accommodation to Egyptian usages which we shall presently endeavour to substantiate. And in the first instance it may be well to hear Maimonides :-" As at that time the universal practice and the mode of worship in which all were educated was, that various kinds of animals should be offered in the temples in which their idols were placed, and before whom their worshippers were to prostrate themselves and to burn incense; and as there were also certain persons set apart for the service of those temples (which, as has been already shown, were erected in honour of the sun, and moon, and other planetary bodies), therefore that Divine wisdom and providence of God, which so eminently shines forth in all his creatures, did not ordain the abandonment or abolition of all such worship. For it is the wellknown disposition of the human heart to cleave to that to which it has been habituated, even in things to which it is not naturally inclined. To have decreed the entire abolition of all such worship would, therefore, have been the same as if a prophet should come and say, 'It is the command of God, that in the day of trouble ye shall not pray, nor fast, nor publicly seek him; but your worship shall be purely mental, and shall consist in meditation, not in action.' On these accounts the Creator retained those modes of worship, but transferred the veneration from created things and shadows to his OWN NAME, and commanded us to direct our religious services to HIMSELF." This learned Jew then goes on to illustrate by examples the view he takes; and this view seems just in itself, while it is amply confirmed by evidence which did not exist, or rather had not been brought to light at the time he wrote.

That, during their sojourn in Egypt, the Israelites had departed very widely from the patriarchal faith, and that the pomps, processions, and imposing ordinances of that country had usurped a powerful influence over their minds, is not only likely in itself, but is demonstrated by the sad affair of the golden calf, and by subsequent manifestations of a tendency towards the idolatries of Egypt. Now the worship of Egypt was full of rites, ceremonies, and apparatus, which, while they were considered as in themselves suitable, were also made symbolical of hidden mysteries, as was the case with the rites of all pagan systems. Now the symbolical or typical nature of the Hebrew ritual is allowed on all hands, and is in the fullest sense admitted by the present writer. Yet we know not that any one has alleged that the heathen borrowed their symbolizations from the Jews, although the similarity is as great in this as in any other matter.

Thus the Hebrews, in their defection to the religion of the Egyptians, had necessarily become habituated to a highly ceremonial and symbolical worship, whereby their minds may well be supposed to have been incapacitated from wholly returning to the plain and simple system of their fathers. The apostle Paul manifestly assigns the origin of the law to some defection of this nature. Wherefore, then, serveth the law?" he asks; and answers, "It was added because of transgressions."*

[ocr errors]

In this state of the case, and after the people had unequivocally evinced their tendencies by the feast of the golden calf, it seems natural and probable that a ceremonial and symbolical form of worship should be conceded to them—as like as might be, in its mere external forms, to that which they were predisposed to follow-but directed to wholly different objects, and carefully purified from all that might, even in remote tendency, lead to idolatrous or unholy associations and practices. Such a course was in unison with those accommodations to the ideas and prejudices of the people, of which other examples might be produced. We may the less hesitate about this, when we reflect that the law, as a whole, was only intended for a particular people, and for temporary purposes; and we have only a right to expect to find that it was good and suitable for its immediate objects. This made it the best under all the circumstances; and a system better absolutely-as having larger objects, and as being adapted to all times and all people-would have been unsuitable and bad for the limited purpose of the Mosaical Law. The principle of accommodation and concession in this law is frequently affirmed in the New Testament; and God himself, by one of the later prophets, speaks of its inadequacy for general and final purposes with great force of expression. He says, “I gave them statutes which were not [absolutely and generally] good, and judgments whereby they should not [abidingly] live." Yet so prone has the Christian world generally been to consider the Mosaical Law as something more than relatively good, something more than perfectly adapted to a limited object, that this text has been made the subject of numerous elaborate expositions, most of which serve only to demonstrate a great unwillingness to receive the words in the obvious and simple meaning which we have indicated.

Then, under these considerations, regarding the Hebrew ritual as an accommodation to the prejudices and dangers of a people who, as a people, were obviously not prepared to receive moral precepts and religious doctrines apart from the ceremonial observances and symbolical appendages in which the greater part of the world had then agreed to envelope them, we shall see occasion to admire the wisdom with which the system founded on this concession was adapted to their condition and capacities, and was moulded into a safeguard against idolatry, and made an instrument of assisting that separation of this people from all others, which was one of the essential conditions of their existence as the chosen race. The manner in which its circumstances were framed to shadow forth the more broad and spiritual dispensation which was to follow, invested it in some degree with a spiritual character, of which we shall hereafter take some notice. And then, in order to keep the nature of the community constantly in view, all the ceremonial institutions had reference to God, not only as the sovereign of the universe, but as the king of the nation. The Israelites were taught to feel that the tabernacle was not only the temple of JEHOVAH, but the palace of their KING; that the table supplied with wine and shew-bread was the royal table; that the altar was the place where the provisions of the monarch were prepared; that the priests were the royal servants, and were bound to attend not only to sacred but also to secular affairs, and were to receive, as their reward, the first tithes, which the people, as subjects, were led to consider as part of the revenue which was due to God, their immediate sovereign. Other things, of a less prominent and important nature, had reference to the same great end.‡

The engravings, by which the immediately ensuing statements are illustrated, are derived entirely from Egyptian sources. Most of our readers know that the ecclesiastical antiquities of the Hebrews are usually illustrated, not by representations of anything known and real, but by pictures which embody such ideas as the artist is able to form from the descriptions which

[blocks in formation]

Exod. xxv. 8, 9; Lev, xxi. 6, 8, 17; Num. xxviii. 2; Deut. xxiii. 4; compare Ezek. xliv. 7. Jahn, sect. 214.

« PoprzedniaDalej »