*

the unadulterated beauties of genuine Christianity, to attract the admiration and command the reverence of mankind. But, says Spencer, even in this reformation, many of the principles and usages of the Romish church were retained, and the progress of that reformation thus accelerated. True; the Christian world will always remember with gratitude, that though the Roman Church introduced many most injurious innovations, and loaded Christianity with a multitude of errors and superstitions, still she preserved all the great truths of the Gospel, and handed down to posterity many of the most valuable rites and usages of antiquity. These, therefore, it became the duty and the wisdom of the Reformers to retain, and only to reject those novelties and corruptions which artifice and superstition had introduced. And admirably indeed did the venerable founders of the Church of England execute this important discrimination. But they succeeded, because they made it their object to clear the divine Law from all intermixture of human depravation; not, as Spencer supposes of the inspired Lawgiver of the Jews, to debase the divine institutions to the level of idolatrous profa

nations.

66

But if the patrons of this system cannot defend it, as being evidently reasonable and useful, and recommended by examples of sufficient authority; still less can they support it by the authority of Scripture. Its greatest advocate indeed acknowledges, "It is no where in Scripture asserted in express words, that the "rites used among the Heathens gave occasion to any of the "Jewish institutions." He adds this reason for such silence: perhaps because this circumstance could easily be discerned. "by men of more penetrating sagacity; or because, if God had openly declared this origin and reason. of the Mosaic Laws, they would have fallen into contempt with the vulgar part of "mankind, who are wont to despise what is plain, and revere only what is mystical and obscure."+ It is obvious to mark how inconsistent this observation is with the general scheme of this writer. The sole purpose of such imitation of Heathen rites, is supposed to be its tendency to attach the multitude by the adoption of customs to which they were already familiarized. Could it produce this effect, if it was not discernible by that * Ut supra, Lib. III. cap. iii. sect. 4. p. 27.

66

Spencer, Lib. III. cap. i. initio.

66

66

multitude? or if discerned, it would expose the Law to contempt. Or could the similarity be obvious, and the design to imitate unseen? Spencer however affirms, that, though it is not directly asserted, it is not obscurely intimated by some passages of Holy Writ; and at the head of these he places the sublime appeal of the Jewish Lawgiver to his people; "What "nation is there so great, that hath God so nigh unto them, as "the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? “And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and 'judgments so righteous as all this Law which I set before you "this day?"—" In this passage," says this learned writer, "Moses, in order to attach the Jews to God and his institu"tions, may be considered as thus addressing them-I know "that you earnestly desire a God not hid in clouds or removed "to a distance from you, and to be perceived only by the "mind's eye, but a God who may prove his presence by prodi"gies, oracles, and illustrious signs, and almost exhibit himself "to your sight. I know that you look with a desiring eye on "the manners and sacred rites of other nations, and that nothing can be more grateful to you, than that you, like other nations, "should have a religion full of rites and observances. And "assuredly God has proved so compliant and indulgent to your "desires and wishes, that I now confidently ask you, What "nation is there which hath its gods so near, or exhibiting to "their worshippers such illustrious proofs of their presence and "their favour? And if you view the institutions of foreign nations, learn, even such of you as regard with the greatest "partiality and attachment the rites of other religions, what "nation is there which celebrates the worship of the Divinity "with rites so conspicuous for purity, dignity, and splendour; "for we do not worship the supreme and glorious God with "that barbarous mixture of ceremonies, in which the ignorance "and superstition of the Heathens had combined so many "things ridiculous and impure, but with rites amended, and "that have undergone the correction of the most wise God, "which are yet retained in the worship of the Heathens entire, "and without any correction." The latter part of this paraphrase, containing the peculiarity of this author's opinion (which I cannot but deem erroneous) assuredly receives no sup

66

* Deut. iv. 7 and S.

port from the passage of Scripture on which he here attempts to found it. Indeed were I to select a passage decidedly contrasting the whole Mosaic Law with the religions of every surrounding nation, it would be the entire chapter from whence this is selected. With what energy does the inspired Lawgiver warn his countrymen to hearken to the statutes of their God, statutes which they were not to presume, in the least degree, to alter-" Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, "neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the "commandments of the Lord your God."* With what solem- . nity does he caution them against the impure and seductive profanation of Baal-peor, which had already brought down upon them the wrath of God;t-against the use of every graven image, as a similitude of the Divinity; -against the adoration of the sun and moon, and host of heaven,§ which at that period was so universal in a deluded world. How incredible is it, that while every principle and species of idolatry is thus reprobated and condemned, any practices or ceremonies of that very idolatry should be adopted and consecrated in the worship of the great Jehovah. The more we examine the Mosaic institutions, the more strikingly conspicuous do the characters of originality and designed contrast to the principles and rites of idolatry appear; as far at least as I can investigate or judge of them. It is true, some parts of the Jewish religion derived their origin from an authority more ancient than that of Moses: the observance of the Sabbath appears to have been coeval with the creation, and the use of sacrifice to have been instituted by God immediately after the Fall. These, therefore, it is perfectly natural to suppose, had been received by other nations from the remotest antiquity, and when adopted into the Mosaic institutions, it was only requisite to free them from the superstitions and corruptions with which they had been blended, restore them to their original purity, and direct them to their true object. The rite of circumcision had been the peculiar seal of the covenant with Abraham, had been given four hundred years before the Mosaic Law, had been received by all the numerous descen

*Deut. iv. 2.

+ Ib. ver. 3.

Ib. ver. 16.

§ Ib. ver. 19.

|| Vide Gen. iii. 21. and iv. 3 and 4; and on this subject Dr Magee's very able and learned Work on Atonement and Sacrifice, Disc. II. with the proofs and illustrations, 21 edit. Dublin, 1809.

dants of that illustrious patriarch, and may have been recommended even to others, who were not his descendants, by the fame of his wisdom and sanctity, and his distinguished prosperity and success. But to suppose, as has been argued,* that it was not to him an original and peculiar divine appointment, is to reject equally probability and Scripture. How could it have been given as the token of the covenant newly established by God with the patriarch, if it had been long in use with nations excluded from that covenant? Why provide that every stranger should submit to this rite, in order to be naturalized amongst the Hebrews, if it were already in use amongst a multitude of strangers? In short, the supposition is utterly unfounded and untenable. But its defenders allege, that circumcision was in use amongst the priests of Egypt; and affirm that they were too proud to borrow it from any other people, much less from a nation of slaves. We may answer, that there were two periods when the pride of the Egyptians may easily have been induced to borrow this rite even from the Hebrews; the first, during the exaltation of Joseph, who intermarried with the family of the priests of the supreme Egyptian deity, On, and the adoption of whose religious principles was so strongly recommended by the hope of thus sharing his distinguished power of penetrating into the secrets of futurity; -and again, when the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, closing the series of sufferings which had nearly destroyed Egypt, may have easily induced the terrified survivors to attempt averting the wrath of the all-powerful and victorious God of the Hebrews, by adopting, as an honorary badge of their priesthood, the seal of his followers. Surely this or almost any mode of accounting for the Egyptians having adopted this rite, is more probable than that the great Jehovah should borrow from idolaters such a practice (as circumcision) to form the right of admission into his church, and the distinguishing characteristic of his worshippers.

* Vide these arguments, collected and compared with those supporting the opposite opinion, by Spencer, Lib. I. cap. iv. sect. 4.—On this point, Spencer, though supporting the opinion, that Abraham first received this rite from a divine appointment, Lib. I. cap. iv. sect. 2. initio, with what appear to me decisive proofs, yet declines giving any positive determination of his own.

Spencer, Lib. I. cap. iv. p. 31.

In truth, the whole tenor of the Jewish Law exhibits not a studied imitation, but a studied opposition to the principles and rites of idolatry. That law required the worship of the one true God exclusively; idolatry worshipped a rabble of deities. The Law proscribed all use of images, or resemblances of any creature, as emblems of the Divinity; idolatry multiplied them. The Law abhorred and condemned all impure rites and all human sacrifices: idolatry too frequently employed them. The Law forbade all necromancy and divination ;* it made no use of the inspection of the entrails of victims, or the observation of the flight of birds, to discover future events; it relied for this, when necessary, on the divine oracle consulted by public authority, and answering from the sanctuary, when the divine glory was displayed, by a distinct and audible voice. The Law forbad a variety of practices, in themselves apparently innocent, but which we know were employed in the superstitions of idolatry; such as worshipping in high places or in consecrated groves. Thus Maimonides notices that the prohibition against rounding the corners of the hair on the head and the beard § was given because the idolatrous priests were accustomed to use that particular tonsure. He assigns a similar reason for not making

*Deut. xviii. 9-12.

During the life of Moses, the oracle answered by a distinct and audible voice: Vide Numbers vii. 89. Joshua was to stand before the High Priest, who was to "ask "counsel for him by the judgment of Urim before the Lord." Numb. xxvii. 21.— Interpreters have differed in explaining this passage. To me it appears to mean, that the High Priest was to put on his sacred robe whenever he was to consult the oracle, as it would be criminal to enter the sanctuary, except he was thus robed. The distinguishing ornament of this robe was the breastplate, containing the Urim and Thummim; that is, as I conceive, the twelve precious stones containing the names of the twelve tribes, as whose representative the High Priest appeared when thus consulting on some question of a national concern. When so consulting, he appears to have been accompanied by the supreme judge, at whose instance the oracle was resorted to; and it appears to me the response was delivered by an audible voice.Compare Exod. xxviii. from verse 15 to the end, with Exod. xxxix. 8 to 22; Levit. viii. 8. Compare also 1 Samuel xxiii. 9 to 12. and xxx. 7.; 2 Samuel v. 23.; also Judges i. 1. and the entire chap. xx. See on this subject, Lowman on the Hebrew Govern. ch. xi.; Spencer, Lib. III, dissert. vii. de Urim and Thummim, particularly the 2d section. In his opinions on this subject, Spencer has adopted an hypothesis as to the nature of the Urim and Thummim, which appears to me most contrary to truth and Scripture, and to be fully confuted by Witsius in his Ægyptiaca, Lib. II. xi. xii. Lib. III. cap. xi.

cap. x.

‡ Vide Maimonides More Nevochim, Pars III. cap. xli. p. 463; and for others, cap. xxxvii. p. 447. Lev. xix. 27.