all the purposes of slaying and sacrificing. But it should be remarked that the sacrifices for sin, and the holocaust for the people and the high priest were, with the exception of those parts destined to be burnt upon the altar, burnt whole (that is, without being cut up, or the skin taken off) outside the camp or city, in the place where it was permitted to heap ashes together. Some victims were offered to God before or after being slain, with certain ceremonies of a singular nature; which ceremonies were, at times, also observed in the presentation of the sacred loaves and cakes, and other consecrated gifts. One of these ceremonies was called heaving, and the other waving; and the offerings which were presented in the one way or the other were accordingly called either heave-offerings or wave-offerings. It is difficult to say precisely what these ceremonies were, or whether indeed there was any difference between them, since the words which express them are sometimes interchanged with each other.† It seems most probable that the word rendered heaving means elevation, and that the other, translated waving, means, on the contrary, laying down, or placing on the earth. But, as what was elevated must be let down again, these words may therefore have been reciprocally used, in such a sense as to express, each of them, at times, the same ceremony. Whatever might be the precise nature of this ceremony of heaving or waving, it appears to have signified that the gift or sacrifice was thereby presented, and was likewise expressive of a desire that it might be acceptable to God. The separated parts of the victim were taken by the priests to the rise of the altar, and there laid down and salted, according to the law, which said, "With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt." There was no injunction in the law more observed than this: for, as the Jewish writers tell us, nothing came upon the altar unsalted, save the wine of the drink-offering, the sprinkled blood, and the wood for the fire. Salt was also used by the Egyptians, and other heathen, in their sacrifices, although not, perhaps, to the same extent; contrary to the assertion of Maimonides. The reason of this we take to be, that, since that which was offered upon the altar was considered "the food of God," offered to him as the king, it was becoming and proper that it should be seasoned, as is usual with meat designed for food. No doubt there was also a reference to the anti-septic qualities of salt, whereby it became a symbol of friendship and covenant.§ The parts of the victim that were to be burnt were then placed upon the fire of the altar; namely, the whole of the burnt-offering, when it was brought by an individual. But in case it was a burnt-offering for the people and the high priest, or any other sacrifice, save the one just mentioned, only the fat which covers the intestines, the fat which is above the intestines, the two kidneys, with the fat adhering to them, the smaller lobe of the liver,) and the fat tail for which one species of Syrian sheep is noted, were to be consumed on the altar. The fat as well as the blood being thus consecrated to the service of the altar, both were forbidden to be eaten under any circumstances by the Israelites. The rest of the flesh, when the sacrifice was a thank-offering, was returned to the sacrificer, who was expected to make a feast of it. This was, however, with the exception of the right shoulder and the breast, which were assigned to the priests. When the sacrifices were sin or trespass offerings, and were not made for the people as a collective body, nor for the high priest, the flesh belonged to the priests, who ate it in the court of the tabernacle or temple.T 1. Holocausts, or whole Burnt Offerings, were sacrifices in which the bodies of the victims were entirely consumed. Sacrifices of this sort were more ancient than any others, and for that reason, probably, are regulated first in the law. They were expiatory, and were offered sometimes for the whole people, as were the daily morning and evening sacrifices; and sometimes by an individual for himself alone, either from the impulse of his feelings, or in fulfilment of a vow. These sacrifices were required to be offered by individuals under the cir Exod. xxix. 24, 27, 28; Lev. vii. 30, 32, 34, viii. 27, ix. 21, x. 15, xiv. 12, xxiii. 20; Num. v. 25. + Exod. xxix. 24; compare v. 27, 28, and Lev. ix. 21. Lev. ii. 12. § Hence a durable covenant is called "a covenant of salt" [Num. xviii. 19, et al.). The history of the ideas connected with salt is a curious and large subject into which we cannot enter. Plutarch has a curious paper on it. Sympos., v. 10. Exod. xxix. 13, 22; Lev. ii. 4, 10, 15, iv. 9, vii. 3, 4, viii. 26, ix. 9, 10, 19. Num. xviii. 10, 11, 18; Lev. x. 14. cumstances stated in the texts cited below. In these sacrifices a libation of wine was poured out at the base of the altar. Among the heathen it was more usual to pour the wine upon the head of the living victim immediately before its immolation to their idols. This is alluded to in Philipp. ii. 17, and 2 Tim. iv. 6; but the Egyptians seem always to have poured their libations upon the ground or the altar. When the poverty of the parties obliged them to avail themselves of the gracious arrangement which enabled every one to suit his offering to his circumstances, and bring turtle-doves or young pigeons, the priest was obliged to deal with them in a peculiar manner, described in Lev. i. 11-17: and this is considered by the Jewish writers to have formed the most nice and difficult portion of all his duties.† 2. The Sin-Offering.-The exact distinction between the transgressions to which the sin and trespass-offerings respectively have reference, is exceedingly obscure. We can only offer the usual explanation, which seems the best: this is, that, understood in the strictly legal sense, sins were violations of prohibitory statutes, that is, the doing of something which the Law commanded not to be done; and that, on the other hand, trespasses were violations of imperative statutes, that is, the neglect of doing things that are commanded. To what has already been said concerning sin-offerings, it only seems necessary to add that the demanded offering of expiation varied with the situation and circumstances of the parties. From the high-priest, or from the people collectively, a bullock was required; a civil magistrate might offer a goat; and from persons in a private station only a kid or lamb, with the usual power to the poor of substituting a turtle-dove and young pigeon.‡ Sin-offerings were required, ceremonially, under particular circumstances, mentioned in the texts cited below.§ One of these may be noticed, being that which required this offering of mothers at child-birth. If the child were a son it was forty, if a daughter eighty days before the completion of her time of purification. She then presented, as her sin-offering, a turtledove and a young pigeon; also a lamb for a burnt-offering; and, in case of poverty, another dove and pigeon, as a burnt-offering, instead of the lamb. That our Lord's mother was obliged to avail herself of this indulgence to the poor, when she offered “two turtle-doves and two young pigeons," is a touching, because purely incidental, illustration of the born poverty of Him "who, though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich." 3. Trespass-Offerings were not required of the people as a body. They were offered by such individuals as had become conscious of their error in having, through ignorance, mistake, or want of reflection, neglected some of the ceremonial precepts of the law, or some of those natural laws which had been introduced into the code, and sanctioned with the penalty of death. The trespasses which could, in a civil sense, be expiated by such sacrifices, are enumerated in Lev. iv. 1-16, v. 1-19. 4. Peace, or Thank-Offerings.—Any kind of legal victim might be offered, with the ceremonies already indicated. They were offered as indications of thankfulness or joy, and were accompanied by unleavened cakes of three different kinds, prepared with oil. The priest who sprinkled the blood presented one of each of these cakes as an offering. The parts of the victim which were not offered on the altar, or received by the priest, and the remainder of the cakes, were, as already stated, returned to the offerer, to be converted by him into an entertainment, to which widows, orphans, the poor, slaves, and Levites were invited. That this feast of benevolence and joy might not be omitted or postponed, although what was not eaten on the day of offering might be kept to the next day, what remained until the third day was to be burnt. This feast could not be celebrated beyond the limits of the place, town, or city in which the sanctuary was stationed. 5. Covenant Sacrifices.-There are no regulations concerning these in the law, but it may be gathered from various intimations that covenants continued to be ratified in the manner of Abraham's memorable sacrifice, which has been described in p. 40 of this work. Jahn Num. vi. 11-16; Lev. xii. 6-8. See also Psa. li. 19, lxvi. 13, 14. + Lev. i. 3-17. § Lev. xii. 6, 8; compare Luke ii. 24; Lev. xiv. 13, 19, 22, 30, 31; Num. vi. 10, 11. Lev. vii. 15-21; Deut. xii. 18. Lev. iv. 22-35. Lev, vii. 11-14, 28-34. considers that this was not a separate class of offerings, but belonged, rather, to the peace, or thank-offerings, and adds,—“The custom of confirming covenants in this manner was derived from a practice among the Chaldeans, among whom those who were about to confirm an agreement slew and divided the victims, and placed the parts opposite to each other. They then passed between the parts thus divided, saying, at the same time, 'Let it not thus be done From this it appears that the act had a symbolical meaning, the victims being symbols of the punishment which was to fall upon the violator of the covenant, which those who passed between imprecated upon their own heads, in case of such violation. Another instance of the kind occurs so late as the reign of King Zedekiah;† and, from intimations in other cases, it appears that other covenants were confirmed among the Hebrews in like unto us.'"* manner. Meaning of Sacrifices.-The section with this title in Jahn's valuable work is so important and instructive that we cannot but transcribe it literally and entire, as it lies before us :— "From what has been said, it is sufficiently clear what significancy or meaning we should attach to sacrifices. For if it were the case that the Hebrews, subsequently to the time of Abraham, were accustomed to indicate in an emblematical manner the punishment due to the violaters of a covenant by the sacrifices made use of when the covenant was entered into, there can be no doubt that they likewise attached a symbolical meaning to sacrifices on other occasions. For instance, such a symbolical meaning was conveyed by the whole burnt-offerings, or holocausts, which were understood both by Noah and Abraham, from what God himself had communicated to them,‡ to be a confirmation, on the part of God, of his promises. With regard to holocausts, it may be remarked that an additional significancy was attached to them by Moses; for he introduced the ceremony of imposition of hands, which was a typical indication that punishment was due to the person who offered the sacrifice, in case he failed in the fulfilment of his promises. the Holocausts being typical of the confirmation of divine promises, was the reason that they were burnt whole, and that they were held in such particular estimation; for promises were very foundation of the whole Jewish polity. The reason also that sacrifices of this kind might be offered by Gentiles who had so far left their own systems as to acknowledge the true God, was, that in offering such sacrifices they were understood to make correspondent promises, of which sacrifices were a confirmation. They possessed, likewise, an expiatory signification, because they indicated that God would be firm in the fulfilment of his part of the covenant, whatever might be the delinquencies of men. The victims for sins and trespasses, which seem to have been new kinds of expiation introduced by Moses, signified the punishment due to the person who had thus erred; and showed at the same time that God would not fail in performing what he had said in reference to them. Finally, those sacrifices which are denominated peace-offerings, and eucharistical offerings, had a typical meaning as well as others; they being indications of the punishments which threatened the Hebrews if they should neglect to walk in the religious way which they had promised. In other words, the meaning of them was as much as if they had said, "It shall not be so with us as with these sacrifices, for we will adhere to our promises." Hence, being confirmed anew in their resolutions on these occasions, they felt themselves at liberty to indulge in conviviality. The sacrifices, therefore, in which aminals were slain were all symbolical, or had a meaning. The divine promises were confirmed by them; and the Hebrews, on the other hand, imparted by them new sanctity to the engagements which they had entered into, to continue faithful to their religion; and were thus excited to more earnest desires for piety of feeling and rectitude of conduct. If many of the Hebrews were disposed to go further than this, and to attribute an inherent efficacy to the sacrifices, and to trust in the multitude of victims, without paying any regard Ephrem Syrus, t. i. p. 161. + Jer. xxxiv. 18. Gen. viii. 20, xv. 9-18. to the temperament of mind in which they might be offered, yet even this does not prove the inaccuracy of our statement; more especially as this error is frequently condemned, and in very decided terms.* That these symbolical substitutions of victims in place of transgressors prefigured a true substitution in the person of Jesus Christ, seems to have been known to very few of the the prophets. Still, this obscurity with respect to the prospective import of sacrifices, is no more proof against the actual existence of such an import than a kindred obscurity, in another case, is against the existence of prophecies, some of which the prophets themselves confessed they did not understand. But although the people did not originally understand this particular meaning of prophecies, they were prepared to perceive it at last. Hence the death of violence which Jesus suffered is everywhere termed in the New Testament a SACRIFICE; for expressions of this kind are not mere allusions, such as occur in the texts cited below; but they indicate a real sacrifice in the person of Christ, which the sacrifices in the Old Testament prefigured, as expressly stated in the other passages which the note below indicates." § BLOODLESS OFFERINGS. These were formed principally by what is usually called the Meat Offering and Drink Offering, and some of them will come under the name of oblations, as distinguished from sacrifices, properly so called. They consisted either of fine wheat flower, or of wine; but there were the exceptions that the offering on the second day of the passover was a sheaf of barley, and that the trespass-offering of the suspected wife was not of wheat but of barley meal. The flour was offered sometimes with and sometimes without preparation. It was salted; sometimes oil was poured upon it, sometimes it was kneaded with oil, and afterwards besmeared with it; and by some persons was offered with frankincense. Honey and leaven were not used,|| except in the two leavened cakes on the feast of Pentecost, and the cakes of the eucharistical and peace-offerings, in which leaven (but not honey) was allowed, and these were not to be placed upon the altar. It is easy to conceived that leaven was forbidden as being opposite in its nature and effects to the salt, the use of which was carefully enjoined. The interdiction of honey is not so explicable, unless we suppose, with Maimonides and others, it was that God might not seem to be pleased with things on account of their sweetness, as well as because it was usual among the heathen to use honey in their offerings, under the notion of its being as acceptable to the gods as to men. All the offerings of which we have been speaking were regarded, in some sort, as appendages to the animal sacrifices. They were offered with all burnt-offerings, except of birds; with the peace-offerings;** but not with sin-offerings, except that which was offered at the cleansing of a leper:†† and, indeed, that none might be kept back by mere poverty from the benefits of this expiation, it was provided that an offering of flour merely should be accepted from those who were too poor to bring even turtle-doves and pigeons.‡‡ Other cases, in which offerings of this class were exhibited apart from animal sacrifices, are found in the twelve loaves of shew-bread; the sheaf of barley offered on the second day of the the Passover; §§ and the loaf which on the day of Pentecost was offered as the first-fruits.|||| Some of these offerings were eaten by the priests, without bringing them to the altar, as the stale loaves of shew-bread, and the leavened cakes. Some were wholly consumed on the altar, as the meat-offering for a priest; ¶¶ but in most cases a small portion only, as a memorial, was consumed on the altar, and the rest belonged to the priest.*** The quantity of the offering of flour and oil was determined by the relative importance of the accompanying animal sacrifice-being the greatest for a bullock, and least for a sheep or lamb. * Psa. xl. 5, 6. 1. 8-13; Isa. i. 11-15; compare 1 Sam. xv. 22; Hos. vi. 6; Micah vi. 6, 8; Mal. ii. 1–9. Rom. xii. 1, xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 6; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. + Isa. liii. § Heb. ix. 3-28, x. 10-14, 18; compare Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24; Luke xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25; Heb. xii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 2; compare Exod. xxiv. 8; John i. 29, 36, xix. 36, 37; 1 Cor. v. 7; 1 Peter ii. 24; compare Isa. liii. 5-12; 2 Cor. v. 21; Eph. v. 2; Rom. iii. 23-25, vii. 25; 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10. The Drink Offering, or libation of wine, was an accompaniment of both the bloody and bloodless sacrifices. The quantity was the same as that of the oil used with the meat-offering. It was poured out at the base of the altar,—or rather part of it was,-the residue being reserved by the priests to drink with their portion of the offerings.* THE FIRST-BORN.-To exhibit their gratitude to God for preserving their first-born in Egypt from destruction when the first-born among the Egyptians (both of men and animals) were all slain, the first-born of men and animals were to be consecrated to God. The first-born children were to be presented before the Lord, and then to be redeemed at a sum not exceeding five shekels. This could not take place till the child was a month old, and was generally deferred to the ceremony of purification for child-birth. The child was not legally considered to belong to his parents till thus redeemed. For this redemption there was the further reason, that the first-born were, by ancient usages, priests by birth, and were to be redeemed from serving at the altar.‡ The first-born of cattle, sheep, and goats, from eight days to a year old, were to be offered in sacrifice. If under any blemish which made them unfit for sacrifice, they were allotted to the use of the priests. These could not be redeemed.§ But if it were an unclean beast-an ass is instanced,-unfit for sacrifice, it might either be redeemed with a lamb, or by the payment of an estimated price. If not redeemed, its neck was to be broken,—a mode of death evidently designed to prevent its blood being shed in sacrifice to idols.|| The pervading idea of all this is, that the consecrated first-born ought to be offered to God upon the altar, if fit for sacrifice: hence no suitable creature could be redeemed. But man is excluded, and by that exclusion declared unfit-in common with unclean beasts. We wish this to be noted as designed to render human sacrifices to the Lord impossible. Such, indeed, were expressly interdicted and precluded by other regulations. FIRST-FRUITS.-The first products of the soil were in the same case as the first products of the womb. Every new planted tree was declared impure for three years, during which whatever grew upon it was not to be eaten or even gathered. The fruits of the fourth year were, therefore, considered the first-fruits. As such they were to be presented before the Lord, and eaten before his holy place; and this, Maimonides alleges, was because idolaters were accustomed to eat their first-fruits in the temples of their idols. But some understand that these first-fruits became the due of the priests, and were eaten by them. Besides this there was the first-fruits of the subsequent annual produce of fruit-trees, and the same of corn, wine, oil, barley, and wool. The first sheaf of barley that was cut (formally), was offered on the second day of the Passover, and the first loaves that could be made from the new corn were offered on the feast of Pentecost, both in the name of the people. But individuals were also bound to offer the first-fruits of the year. The quantity is not specified, but is left to the will of the giver. We are told by the Jewish writers, however, that the proportions varied according to the disposition of the giver from a fortieth to a sixtieth. The former was considered liberal, and the latter mean. These were the first-fruits,¶ which the people were so often commanded to bring to the place of the sanctuary. This they did, with considerable ceremony and manifestations of gladness, and presented them in acknowledgment that God had given to them the good land which he promised to their fathers. As the act of presentation he repeated the remarkable form of words prescribed by Moses,-“ A Syrian ready to perish was my father," &c.** This is one of the most marked of many regulations which exhibit to us the singular spectacle of legislation for a condition of society which did not yet exist among this people; and with reference to a country of which they knew little or nothing, and which was, as yet, theirs only in the purposes and promises of God. Tithes. Besides these first-fruits the Hebrews were required to render the tithes or tenths Num. xv. 3-12, xxviii. 7-29. Num. iii. 20, 21. It is alleged by some of the Jewish writers, that only the wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates, were taken to Jerusalem; and that the corn, wine, oil, and wool, were fetched by the priests. ** Deut. xxvi. 4, et seq.; see also Exod. xxili. 19; Lev. ii. 12; Num. xv. 17-21, xviii. 11-13; Deut. xxviii. 1, 11. |