Offerings, Sacrifices and Worship in the Old Testament

Preface

TWENTY years have passed since I was prompted by the appearance of Bahr's Symbolik to publish my work on '‘Das Mosaische Opfer, Mitau 1842." As this work was sold off in the course of a few years, I cherished the desire and intention of meeting the questions that were continually arising, by preparing a new edition, as soon as I should have finished another work which I had then in hand. But the longer this task was postponed, the greater the obstacles to its execution appeared. For year after year writings upon this subject were constantly accumulating, which for the most part were strongly opposed to the standpoint and results of my own work, both in their fundamental view and in their interpretation of various details. These writings had also shown me much that was weak and unsatisfactory in my own work, particularly in the elaboration of the separate parts; though opposition had only convinced me more and more of the entire correctness of my earlier opinions, which were no other than the traditional and orthodox views. But this did not render me insensible to the fact, that if the work was to be taken up again, it must be in the form of a thoroughly new book. On the former occasion I had simply to overthrow the views of one single opponent, which were as unscriptural as they were unorthodox, and to raise by the side a new edifice upon the old, firm foundation of the Church. Now, on the contrary, not only is there a whole forest of opposing standpoints and opinions to be dealt with, that differ quite as much from one another, as they do from the view which I have advocated; but

PREFACE.

so many breaches have been made in the edifice erected by me, that simply repairing the injured and untenable posts is quite out of the question, and it is much better to pull down the old building altogether and erect a new one in its place. The foundation, indeed, still remains the same, and many of the stones formerly employed prove themselves still sound; but even these require fresh chiselling, and such as are not usable have to be laid aside for new ones.

For so extensive a work, however, I could find neither time nor leisure, especially as my studies lay in other directions, in consequence of a change that had taken place in the meantime in my official post and duties. It was not till a year and a half ago, when my academical labours led once more in the direction of Biblical Antiquities, that I had to enter ex professo into the Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament. With this there arose so strong a desire to work once more at the subject with a view to publication, and thus, so to speak, to wipe off old debts, that I could not refrain any longer. Hence the present volume, which has assumed a totally different form from the earlier one, and therefore is to be regarded as an entirely new and independent work.

Thomasius , when speaking of the Old Testament Sacrifices in his well-known work on Scripture Doctrines (III. 1, p. 39), says:

“It ought, indeed, to be possible to appeal in this case to the consensus of expositors; but how widely do the views of modern writers differ from one another as to the meaning of this institution!” It seems to me, however, that there are but a few prominent points of Biblical Theology in which such a demand can possibly be made, and in this point perhaps least of all. Yet there is certainly hardly any other case, in which the complaints that are made as to the confusion of contradictory views are so perfectly warranted as they are here. How widely, for example, are theologians separated, who

PREFACE.

generally stand closest together when questions relating to the Church, the Bible, or Theology are concerned, e.g., Hofmann and Baumgarten, Delitzsch and Kliefoth, Oehler and Keil\ To what an extent doctrinal standpoints, that are in other respects the most opposed, may be associated here, is evident from the fact, that in answering the most essential and fundamental question of all, viz., whether the slaughtering of the expiatory sacrifice had the signification of a poena vicaria , it is possible for me to stand by the side, not of Hofmann, Keil, Oehler, and Delitzsch, but of Gesenius, De Wette, and Knobel.

In this state of affairs, a monograph upon this subject would not be complete, without examining the theories of opponents, however great their confusion may frequently be, as well as building up one's own. Even where there is so little agreement, so little common ground, and on the other hand, so much opposition in details and in general principles, in the foundation as well as in the superstructure, it appears to me to be the duty of an author towards his readers, not only to tell them his own views and to defend them by rebutting unwarrantable and unsuccessful attacks, but to give them a full explanation of the opposite views, and his reason for not adopting ing them, in order that they may be placed in circumstances to survey the whole ground of the questions in dispute, and to form their own independent judgment, even though they may be led to differ from the views and conclusions of the author himself.

My reason for giving a secondary title to this book , 1 by which

1 The present volume is published in the original with two separate titlepages. One is the title prefixed to this Translation; the other, "History of the Old Covenant; Supplement to the second volume: The Giving of the Law; Part I. The Law of Worship." As the author expressly states that he has written this as an independent work, there was no necessity to publish the second title-page in the English Translation. The reader will be able to assign it to its proper connection with the " History of the Old Covenant."— TR.

PREFACE.

I connect it with my “History of the Old Covenant,” is the following:-According to the original plan of that work, the second volume, which describes the historical circumstances of the Mosaic age, was to be followed by a systematic account of the Mosaic laws. 1 But I had not the time to carry out the present work on so extensive a scale. Moreover, as I have already stated, it has not arisen from the necessity for going on with the work just mentioned (a necessity which unquestionably does press most powerfully upon me), but from the necessity for returning to a subject upon which I had already written twenty years ago, and which had been taken up since from so many different points of view, in order that I might remove such faults and imperfections in my former work as I had been able to discover, and avail myself of new materials for establishing and elaborating my views. At the same time, by the publication of this volume, the substance of which was to have formed an integral part of my larger work, I have precluded the possibility of carrying out the latter upon the plan originally proposed. I have thought it desirable, therefore, that the third volume of that work should continue the history itself (as far as the establishment of the kingdom); and that the present volume should appear as the first part of a supplementary work, embracing the various parts of the Mosaic legislation.

1 This plan is referred to at vol. ii. p. 328 of the original, vol. iii. p. 102 of the English Translation.— TR.

Part I. The Ritual Of The Sacrifice

CHAPTER I. § 27-30. The Notion of Expiation, 66

„ II. § 31-34. The Objects used in Sacrifice, 75

„ III. § 35-47. The Presentation and Laying on of Hands, 82

„ IV. § 48-71. Slaughtering, and Sprinkling of the Blood, 101

V.

72-84. Burning of the Sacrifice, and the Sacrificial Meal,

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Part II. Varieties Of The Bleeding Sacrifice

Page

CHAPTER I. Distinguishing Characteristics of the Bleeding Sacrifice, 174

A. § 85-88. The Sin-Offering, Burnt- Offering, and Peace-

Offering, 174

B. § 89-92. The Common Basis of the Sin-Offering and

Trespass-Offering, 182

C. § 93-105. The Difference between the Sin-Offering and

the Trespass-Offering, 189

„ II. § 106-122. Ritual of the Sin-Offering and Trespass-Offering, 213

„ III. § 123-139. Ritual of the Burnt- Offering and Peace-Offer-

Book III. The Bloodless Sacrifice

CHAPTER I. § 140-146. Material of the Bloodless Sacrifice, 281

„ II. § 147-157. The Minchah of the Fore-Court, 296

„ III. §158-161. The Minchah of the Holy Place, 315

Book IV

MODIFICATION OF THE SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIAL SEASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

CHAPTER I. The Consecration of the People, the Priests, and the Levites, 322

A. § 162-164. Covenant Consecration of the People, 322

B. § 165-172. Consecration of the Priests and the Sanc-

tuary, 328

C. § 173. Consecration of the Levites,

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER II. Adaptation of the Sacrificial Worship to Special Seasons and Feasts

A. § 174-176. Mosaic Idea of a Feast,

B. § 177-179. Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Service,

C. § 180-189. The Feast of Passover,

D. § 190-193. The Feast of Pentecost.

E. § 194-196. The Feast of Tabernacles,

F. § 197-212. The Day of Atonement,

„ III. Adaptation of the Sacrificial Worship to the Fevitical and Priestly Purifications,

A. § 213-216. Nature and Idea of Uncleanness in connec-

tion with Worship,

B. § 217-223. Removal of Uncleanness caused by Touch-

ing a Corpse,

C. § 224-228. Cleansing of a Feper when Cured,

„ IV. Adaptation of the Sacrificial Worship to certain Peculiar Circumstances,

A. § 229-230. Presentation of the First-Born of Cattle,

B. § 231-233. The Nazarite's Offering,

C. § 234-237. The Jealousy Offering,

Page

LIST OF WORKS

MOST FREQUENTLY REFERRED TO.

BAEHR, K. CHR. W. F., Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus. 2 Bde. Heidelb. 1837,39.

BUNSEN, CHR. C. J., Vollstandiges Bibelwerk. Erster Bd. Leipzig 1858. DELITZSCH, FR„ Commentar zum Hebraerbrief. Leipzig 1857.

EBRARD, J. H. A., Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugthuung. Konigsb. 1857.

HENGSTENBERG, E. W., Die Opfer der heil. Schrift. Ein Vortrag. Berlin 1852.

Das Ceremonialgesetz. In his Beitrage zur Einleit. ins A. Test. Bd. iii.

Berlin 1839. (Dissertations on the Pentateuch, 2 vols. Translated by Ryland. Clark 1847.)

Die Bucher Mose's and Aegypten. Berlin 1841. (Egypt and the Books

of Moses. Clark 1845.)

KAHNIS, K. F. A., Lutheriscbe Dogmatik. Bd. i. Leipzig 1862.

16 LIST OF WORKS MOST FREQUENTLY REFERRED TO.

KEIL, K. FR., Handbuch der bibl. Archaologie. Erste Halfte: Die gottesdienstlichen Verhaltnisse der Israeliten. Frankfurt 1858.

tung. Luth. Zeitscbrift 1856, iv., 1857, i. ii. iii.

Biblischer Commentar uber die Bucher Mose's. Bd. i. Gen. and Exod.

Leipzig 1861.

KLIEFOTH, TFL, Liturgische Abhandlungen. Bd. iv. Auch u.. d. Titel: Die ursprungl. Gottesdienstordnung u. s. w. Bd. i. 2 Aufl. Schwerin 1858.

KNOBEL, A., Die Bucher Exodus and Leviticus erklart. Leipzig 1857.

Die Bucher Numeri, Deuteron. and Josua erklart. Leipzig 1861.

OEHLER, Der Opfercultus des Alten Test. In Herzog's theolog. Realencyclop. Bd. x. Gotha 1858.

Priesterthum im A. Test. Bd: xii. Gotha 1860.

RIEHM, E., Ueber das Schuldopfer. Theol. Studien and Kritiken. 1854.

RINCK, S. W Ueber das Schuldopfer. Theol. Studien and Kritiken. 1855.

SCHOLL, G. H. F., Ueber die Opferidee der Alten, insbesondere der Juden. In the Studien der evangel. Geistlichkeit Wurtembergs. Bd. iv. Heft 1-3. Stuttgart 1832.

SCHULTZ, FR. W., Das Deuteronomium erklart. Berlin 1859.

STEUDEL, J. CHR. FR., Vorlesungen uber die Theologie des A. Test, herausg. von G. Fr. Oehler. Berlin 1840.

THALHOFER, V., Die unblutigen Opfer des mosaischen Cultus. Regensburg 1848.

THOLUCK, A., Das alte Testament im neuen Testament. 5 Aufl. Gotha 1861.

THOMASIUS, G., Christi Person and Werk. Bd. iii. Erlangen 1859.

SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP

OF

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Book I. General Basis Of The Sacrificial Worship Of The

OLD TESTAMENT.

AS the subject in hand is the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament, that is to say, of the Israelites before Christ, we have no need to raise the question: To whom were the sacrifices presented? By worship (cultus) we mean the worship of GOD; and from the very fact that the sacrifices of which we are speaking formed an essential ingredient in the Old Testament worship, they also formed a part of that service which Israel was required to render to its GOD. -A general answer is also thus obtained to the further question: By whom were the sacrifices presented? At the same time, we must inquire somewhat minutely into the peculiar position and organization of the Israelitish nation, so far as they affected the worship offered, in order to secure the necessary basis for our investigation of the precise nature of the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament. With this we shall also have to connect an inquiry into the nature and importance of the place in which the sacrifices were presented, since this affected the sacrificial worship in various ways. And, lastly, we shall also have to discuss the questions: What was sacrifice, and what were the different modes of sacrificing?— In this introductory part, therefore, we shall have to treat: 1. Of the persons sacrificing; 2. Of the place of sacrifice; and 3. Of the different varieties of sacrifice.

We shall take them in the order thus given, for the simple reason

THE PERSONS SACRIFICING.

that the arrangement of the place of sacrifice was affected by the organization of the persons sacrificing, and the varieties of sacrifice were affected by them both.

CHAPTER I.

THE PERSONS SACRIFICING.

A. THE PEOPLE.

§ 1 . When Jehovah had delivered His chosen people Israel (His “first-born,” Ex. iv. 22) out of the bondage of Egypt, and brought them as on eagles' wings to Sinai-the eternal altar erected for that purpose at the creation of the world, where He was about to renew the covenant, which He had made with the fathers of this people, with their descendants who were now a great nation, and to establish them on a firm and immovable foundation by giving them His law,— He first directed His servant Moses (Ex. xix. 4-6) to lay before the people the preliminaries of that law, in which the future calling of Israel was declared to be this: to be Jehovah's possession before all nations, and as such to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

This expressed, on the negative side, the selection and separation of Israel from all other nations, and its obligation to be unlike them; and on the positive side, its obligation to belong to Jehovah alone, to be holy, because and as He Himself is holy (Lev. xix. 2), and in all it did and left undone throughout its entire history, to act in subservience to the saving designs of Jehovah, as the only way by which it could become the medium of salvation to all nations (Gen. xii. 3, xxviii. 14). 1

In the destination of Israel to be peculiarly “a kingdom of priests,” so that the whole nation was to consist of nothing but priests, it was distinctly taught that every Israelite was to bear a priestly character, and to possess and exercise the specific privileges and duties of the priesthood. But was soon manifest that Israel, as then constituted, and in the existing stage of the history of sal-

1 For a thorough and careful examination of the contents of these preliminaries of the covenant, see History of the Old Covenant, vol. iii. pp. 102 sqq. (translation).

THE PEOPLE.

vation, was not in a condition to enter at once upon its priestly vocation, and fulfil its priestly work of conveying salvation to the rest of the nations. For it speedily furnished a practical proof of its unfitness even for the first and most essential preliminary to this vocation, viz., that it should draw near to Jehovah, and hold personal and immediate intercourse with Him (Num. xvi. 5), by turning round and hurrying away in terror and alarm when it was led up to the sacred mountain, and Jehovah descended amidst thunder and lightning, and proclaimed to the assembled congregation out of the fire and blackness of the mountain the ten fundamental words of the covenant law. On that occasion they said to Moses (Ex. xx. 19); “Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die” (cf. Deut. v. 22 sqq.). By these words they renounced the great privilege of the priesthood, that of drawing near to God, and holding personal and immediate intercourse with Him. With their consciousness of unholiness, they felt that they were not ripe or qualified for entering upon the fulness of their priestly vocation. They felt rather that they needed a mediator themselves to carry on their intercourse with God. The designs of God Himself with reference to the covenant had from the very first contemplated this (Ex. xx. 20); but it was necessary that the people themselves should discover and clearly discern, that for the time it could not be otherwise. Jehovah therefore expressed His approval of the people's words (Dent. v. 28, “They have well said all that they have spoken”); and from that time forth Moses was formally appointed on both sides as the mediator of the covenant for the period of its first establishment and early development in the giving of the law, and at a later period the family of his brother Aaron was called and set apart by the law itself as a permanent priesthood for the priestly nation.

But even after thus declining the specific work of the priesthood, Israel still remained the holy, chosen nation, which was not to be like other nations, but holy, as Jehovah is holy. It continued to be the possession of Jehovah above all nations; and it still stood out as a priest of God, distinct from them in life and conduct, in the possession of divine revelation, of divine institutions, and of the means of salvation, as well as in the calling to become the vehicle of salvation to all mankind. The qualifications for this calling it first truly received through the conclusion of the covenant and its consecration at Sinai. And even the idea of the universal priesthood of the whole nation, however much ground it had lost by the

THE PERSONS SACRIFICING.

temporary demands of a separate priesthood, retained enough to preserve its hold upon the consciousness of the people, and to point their longing hopes to the time of fulfilment, when they should enter upon the full (active) possession of all the privileges and blessings of the universal priesthood (1 Pet. ii. 5, 9).

§ 2. Birth from Israelitish parents secured to the new-born child a claim to be received into the membership of the covenant nation, but did not confer, or even guarantee, membership itself.

On the contrary, a special act of initiation was necessary, viz., the rite of CIRCUMCISION (H b 1 &), which was also performed upon every stranger who desired to forsake heathenism and to be incorporated into the covenant nation (Gen. xvii. 27, xxxiv. 14 sqq. ; Ex. xii. 43,

44). Circumcision had been instituted as a sign and seal of that covenant which God concluded with Abraham (Gen. xvii. 10—14).

But as the Sinaitic covenant was neither an absolutely new one, nor essentially different from the one which God had previously concluded with the father of the nation, but was simply the renewal of that covenant as the basis of their national existence, the same covenant initiation and covenant seal was still retained for every individual, as that by which Abraham first entered into the covenant when he was called “alone” (Isa. li. 2).

As circumcision comes only so far into consideration in connection with the sphere of religious worship, that it attested the fact of membership in the covenant nation, and on that account was the conditio sine qua non of participation in certain sacrificial acts; an inquiry into the origin, essence, and significance of this institution would lead us too far away from our present object; and there is the less necessity for it here on account of what we have already written on the question (Hist, of the Old Covenant, vol. i. pp. 231 sqq. translation). 1

But there were many NON-ISRAELITES (D"’"I7) living in the land of Israel, for whose condition care was taken to make provision even in the earliest code of laws (viz., that contained in the middle books

1 Keil's objections to my remarks, in his Bibl. Archaologie i. 311, do not really touch them; and they are the more surprising, since his own explanation ("Its significance lay in the religious idea, that the corruption of sin brought into human nature by the fall was concentrated in the organ of generation, inasmuch as it is generally in the sexual life that it comes out most strongly; and, therefore, the first thing necessary for the sanctification of life is the purification or sanctification of the organ by which life is propagated") coincides so exactly with the first part of the results of my inquiry, that it might be called a brief summary of them.

THE PEOPLE.

of the Pentateuch). If they would allow themselves to be formally and fully incorporated into the covenant nation by receiving circumcision, a perfect equality with the Israelite by birth was guaranteed to them by the law in both religious and political privileges (Ex. xii. 48). They then ceased to be foreigners. At any rate, there can be no doubt that when we read in the Thorah of "the stranger that is within thy gates," or "in the midst of thee," etc., we have invariably to think of uncircumcised settlers, or foreigners who had not been naturalized. The rule with respect to their civil position is laid down in the fundamental principle, "One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you"

(Ex. xii. 49, cf. Lev. xxiv. 22 and Num. xv. 15, 16). And since they had, as strangers, no relations to fall back upon, they were urgently commended in Deuteronomy to the especial protection of the authorities, in common with widows and orphans; and because they had no inheritance in the holy land, and could not even acquire landed property, they were to be admitted to the festal and tithing meals along with the poor of the nation (Ex. xii. 48; Num. ix. 14; Deut. xiv. 28, 29, xvi. 10 sqq., xxvi. 11 sqq.), and were to share with them in the gleaning of the vintage, the fruit-gathering, and the harvest, and in the produce of the sabbatical year (Lev. xix. 10, xxiii. 22, xxv. 6; Dent. xxiv. 19 sqq.).

In return for these privileges, they were required, on the other hand, to submit to certain restrictions. For example, they were to abstain from everything which was an abomination to the Israelites, and consequently to renounce all idolatry, the eating of blood, etc. (Ex. xii. 19, xx. 10; Lev. xvi. 29, xvii. 8 sqq., xviii. 20, xx. 2, xxiv. 16 sqq.; Num. xv. 13 sqq.; Dent. v. 14); they were also to fast along with the Israelites on the great day of atonement (Lev. xvi. 29), and to keep the Sabbath as strictly as they (Ex. xx. 10, xxiii. 12). Their relation to the sacrificial worship was restricted to this, that they were allowed to offer all kinds of sacrifice to Jehovah (burnt-offerings, and peace- (or thank-) offerings, according to Lev. xvii. 8, xxii. 18, 25; and, according to Num. xv. 29, even sin-offerings also, as circumstances required), and to participate in the blessings which the sacrifice secured. They could take no part in the Passover without previous circumcision (Ex. xii. 48). But admission to the ordinary sacrificial worship at the tabernacle, was a necessary correlative to the unconditional law against serving and sacrificing to their former gods whilst in Jehovah's land.

§ 3. While the Israelite was thus marked and sealed in his own

THE PERSONS SACRIFICING.

body as belonging to the covenant nation, the principle of separation from heathenism, 1 or the duty not to be as the heathen, was also symbolically manifested in other departments, chiefly in his daily food, but also to some extent in his CLOTHING (Num. xv. 38-40, cf.

Lev. xix. 19 and Dent. xxii. 1 1). But as there is not the slightest connection between the latter and the sacrificial worship, it would be out of place to enter into any closer examination of the laws relating to that subject. There is all the more reason, however, why we should carefully examine the restrictions placed upon the Israelites in relation to their FOOD, inasmuch as they lay, on the one hand, at the foundation of the legal enactments with reference to the sacrificial worship, and were, on the other hand, the necessary result of the fundamental idea of that worship.

The former applies to the division of the animal kingdom into CLEAN and UNCLEAN; the Israelites being allowed to eat of the clean, whilst the unclean was prohibited (cf. Lev. xi.; Dent. xiv.).

On the basis of the old Hebrew division of the animal kingdom into four parts, the law selects from the class of land animals, as clean or edible, none but those which ruminate and have also cloven feet, and pronounces all the rest unclean. The principal animals selected as clean are the ox, the sheep, the goat, and the various species of stags, and gazelles or antelopes; and as unclean, the camel, the hare, the badger, and the swine. Among fishes, the distinguishing characteristic of the clean is, that they have fins and scales; so that all smooth, eel-like fishes are excluded. In the case of the birds, there is no general rule laid down, but the unclean are mentioned by name,— nineteen kinds in Leviticus, and twenty-one (3 X 7) in Deuteronomy. The first heptad embraces the carnivorous and carrion birds,-eagles, vultures, ravens, etc.; the second, the ostrich and the different species of owls; the third, nothing but marsh-birds, and the bat. Of the fourth class, or the so-called

1 Since circumcision was a sign and attestation of membership in the covenant nation, the importance of separation and distinction from heathenism was eo ipso expressed by it. It is true, this seems at variance with the fact that, according to Herodotus, the Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians also practised circumcision. But among these nations circumcision was not a universal or national custom; for, according to Origen, it was only the priests in, Egypt who submitted to it, and, according to Clemens Alex., only the priests and those who were initiated into the mysteries. In any case, the distinction between circumcised and uncircumcised in the Old Testament is uniformly equivalent to that between Israelites and non-Israelites (see instar omnium, Jer. ix.

25, 26).

THE PEOPLE.

swarming animals (f *1$), four species of locusts are the only exceptions to the universal sentence of uncleanness.

The distinction between clean and unclean animals, with the command to abstain from eating the flesh of the latter, was never merely a civil or medical arrangement, based upon sanitary considerations, in any of the nations in which it prevailed, and least of all among the Hebrews. Such measures as these would have been altogether foreign to the spirit of ancient legislation. Moreover, the obligation to observe them was invariably enforced as a religious duty, and never upon civil grounds. But to smuggle in laws of a purely material and utilitarian tendency under the hypocritical name of religious duties, for the mere purpose of facilitating their entrance and securing a more spirited observance, would have been a course altogether opposed to the spirit of antiquity, which was far too naif, too reckless and unreserved, to do anything of the kind;— whilst the opposite course, of upholding religious duties by political commands, is met with on every hand.

But the question as to the reason why certain animals were pronounced clean, and certain others unclean, is a somewhat different one. This may undoubtedly be traceable to sanitary or other similar considerations, lying outside the sphere of religion. The actual or supposed discovery, that the flesh of certain animals was uneatable or prejudicial to health, and a natural repugnance to many animals, which sometimes could, and at other times could not, be explained, may no doubt have been the original reason for abhorring or refusing them as food. And if, either subsequently or at the same time, some religious motive led to the establishment of a distinction among animals between clean and unclean, i.e., between eatable and not eatable, nothing would be more natural than that all those animals, whose flesh was avoided for the physical or psychical reasons assigned, should be placed in the category of unclean, and that the eating of them, which from the one point of view appeared to be merely prejudicial to health, or repulsive and disgusting to natural feelings, should, from the other point of view, be prohibited as sinful and displeasing to God.

In heathenism there were two ways, varying according to the different starting points, by which a distinction of a religious character might have been established in the animal world between clean and unclean. Dualism, the characteristic peculiarity of which was to trace the origin of one portion of creation to an evil principle, whether passing by the name of Ahriman, Typhon, or anything

THE PERSONS SACRIFICING.

else, necessarily included in this category all noxious animals, and such as excited horror or disgust, and prohibited the eating of them as bringing the eater into association with the evil principle; and Pantheism , which regards all life in nature as the progressive development and externalization of the absolute Deity, necessarily regarded all noxious and repulsive objects in the animal creation as a deterioration of the divine life, and avoided them in consequence.

But both these views are far removed from the Monotheism of Israel, which recognised neither a dualism of world-creating principles, nor a self-development of God assuming shape in noxious or disgusting forms of life, but only one holy God, who, by virtue of His omnipotence, and in accordance with His wisdom, created the world, and all that is therein, both good and holy. Yet even the Monotheist could not deny the dualism of good and evil, noxious and salutary, repulsive and attractive, ugly and beautiful, which actually exists in the world. Moreover, his revelation taught him, that degradation and corruption had penetrated, through the curse of sin, into the world which God created good and holy (Gen. iii.