་ 6 6 body. The intermural is more holy than the moun'tain of the house; because strangers and persons "defiled with a dead body, or polluted by forbidden 'intercourse, are not allowed to enter it. The court of the women is more holy than the intermural; for no access is permitted to any one on the same day in which he has been washed on account of 'impurity. But this prohibition is only by a decree of the Sanhedrim. For a person who has been washed on account of impurity is permitted by the law to enter into the camp of the Levites on the day of his ablution.* Nor is he guilty of a crime, who enters into the court of the women when he is defiled with a dead body. The court of Israel is more holy than the court of the women; for there no one can lawfully enter, who wants any expiation. "The court of the priests is more holy than the court of Israel; for it is never entered by Israelites except for the sake of performing some duty, such as to lay hands upon a victim, to make a confession of sins over it, to slay it, or to wave the divided 6 members. That part of the court of the priests which lies between the porch and the altar, is more holy than the other part of it; for it is not to be entered by priests with any blemish, with the head covered, or with torn garments.' This aggravated the crime of those who murdered Zacharias there. The temple is more holy than that part of the court of the priests which lies between the porch and the altar; for there no one is lawfully admitted but with washed hands and feet. The inner sanctuary is more holy than the temple; for it is unlawful for any one to enter there except the high priest * Levit, xvi. 28. ' alone, and even for him except only on the day of expiation, at the precise time appointed for that ser'vice.' This interior sanctuary, as Abarbinel himself has observed,* was an image of the highest heaven. Here was the propitiatory or mercy seat, as the divine footstool: here were the cherubim, as the celestial ministers; between whom God is said to have dwelt,† and whence he promised to deliver his oracles. It is no wonder therefore, that so sacred a place was shut against all but the high priest alone, who was the principal advocate and intercessor with God on behalf of the people. IX. The same custom was followed by the heathens in many of the temples of their gods. Some fanes,' says Minutius Felix, are allowed to be en'tered once in a year: some are never permitted to 'be seen at all.' Thus also Pausanias (in Boot.) says of the temple of Cybele; They deem it lawful 'to open the temple one day in every year, and no more,' And in the same book, respecting the temple of Eurynomene: "On the same day in every year they open the temple of Eurynomene; but it has ⚫ not been appointed for them to open it at any other 'time. Thus also (in secund. Eliac.) of the temple of Pluto: It is opened once in every year; but then no one is permitted to enter, except the priest." The same author (in Arcad.) relates that the temple of the equestrian Neptune was always shut against every person. Thus it appears to have been the opinion of heathens, that temples rightly dedicated were mansions and habitations of the gods, and were filled with their divinity; and that for this reason they ought seldom or never to be entered by men. * Ad Levit. xvi. + Psal. lxxx. 1. xcix. 1. Exod. xxv. 22,* 54 CHAPTER IV. The Ministers of Sacrifices. MANY writers, both Jews and Christians, suppose that in the early ages of the world the priesthood was one of the privileges of primogeniture; and they adduce several arguments in support of their opinion. The first is, that all the first born of the Hebrews were devoted to God, who by a special claim called them his own.* And those whom God declares to be his and sacred or devoted to him, they apprehend to have been priests.-Their next argument is, that the Levites, who were ministers of religion, were devoted to God instead of the first born, and substituted in their room; so that whatever character was conferred upon the Levites after their substitution in the room of the first born, that character must have been sustained by the first born as long as they held their original place. This is thought to be implied in the statement, that Moses employed 66 young men" to offer sacrifices;† where the appellation of "young men" is supposed to indicate their being some of the first born.-Their last argument is, that Esau, for having undervalued and sold his right of primogeniture, is stigmatized with the character of a "profane person." The reason of this is concluded to be, that by bartering the privilege of his birth-right for a mean consideration he deprived himself of the priesthood, which was acting the part of a profane person. II. But notwithstanding the plausibility of these arguments, I think it is possible to answer them and Num. viii. 17. + Exod. xxiv. 5. + Heb. xii. 16, to adduce some other considerations which invalidate this opinion. Though the first born of the Hebrews were devoted to God, yet this resulted not from any privilege of primogeniture, or right to the priesthood, but was in consequence of God's preservation of them, when all the first born of the Egyptians were suddenly destroyed.* It was the will of God that all the first born in Israel, both man and beast, whom he preserved alive when those of the Egyptians were slain, should thenceforward be devoted to himself. But this devotion of the first born was not known except among the Hebrews, and not even among the Hebrews themselves before that time; nor did it prevail among them afterwards so as for the first born to be priests, but a kind of portion belonging to the priests, from whom they were to be redeemed by the payment of five shekels for each individual. it any more to the purpose that the Levites, though it is true that they were ministers of religion, succeeded to the place of the first born. For notwithstanding this appointment, they were not priests, but assistants of the priests; nor did they even act in this capacity till they had been consecrated to their office by certain solemn rites. Nor is Nor does the account of Moses having "sent young men which offered burnt offerings and sacri"ificed peace offerings," if rightly understood, afford ́any confirmation of this sentiment. There is no evidence that those young men were selected from among the 'first born; nor, whoever they were, did they sprinkle the blood upon the altar, which was the peculiar office of the priests. This was performed Num. iii. 13. viii. 17. ↑ Num. xviii, 16. Exod. xxiv. 5, * by Moses himself, who at that time united both the pontifical and regalt dignities in his own person. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that those young men are said to have offered the victims, because they brought them to the altar; which is what the scriptures every where express by the word offering; and this oblation, in regard to the sacrifices of individuals, was the proper office of those persons on whose behalf they were immolated; nor, in the case of sacrifices for the whole congregation, did it always belong to the priests, but to other persons who represented that congregation. Nor, in the last place, do I allow much weight to the argument drawn from the appellation of a " pro"fane person," given to Esau for having sold his birthright. I consider the apostle in that passage as referring the birth-right of Esau, not to the priesthood, but to a double portion of the paternal inheritance and to the regal dignity. For the regal dignity and an ampler inheritance, which belonged to the first born by a divine and sacred right, a, right of the highest antiquity, and founded in nature itself, ¶ were divine privileges, which no person could undervalue without justly incurring the charge of profaneness; especially in those times when such things were evidences of the peculiar favour of God. III. These considerations induce me to conclude, that it was the custom of the remotest antiquity for every individual to act as his own priest, in sacrifices offered for himself alone, Cain and Abel, it is evident from the scripture,** offered, each his own oblation, This one fact proves that in the earliest times Exod. xxiv. 6. + Psal. xcix. 6. Deut. xxxiii. 5. § Heb. xii. 16. ** Gen. iv. 3, 4. |