want of appetite in persons who had just seen sons and brothers ruthlessly burnt up,-"and such things have befallen me;"-"and if I had eaten the sin offering today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord?" "Moses" excuses him ;- "And when Moses heard that, he was content"! (vv. 19, 20).

In the greater number of the sacrifices, "sin" and "trespass" offerings, only the fat, which was not allowed to be eaten by the Hebrews, was burnt on the altar "for a sweet savor unto the Lord." Extraordinary sacrifices only, such as those for the sin of "the whole congregation," required the burning of the good meat. In other cases, the available meat went to the priests' table. Even in such exceptional sacrifices as the peace offering “which was for the people," the choice bits, the "breasts and the right shoulder," (ix. 18, 21, etc.,) (see also vii. 30-38,) after being solemnly "waved" towards the altar as in acknowledgment of Yahvè's rights, were carried off to the sacerdotal banquet in the "most holy" place. In "meat" offerings, which were quasi voluntary contributions of flour and cakes, with oil, a "handful" only was burned for Yahvè "for a sweet savor," (vi. 15, etc.); the rest was to be eaten by the priests in the "tabernacle." The altar fire, like the Persian sacred fire, was never to be extinguished, (vi. 13). The comestibles, oil and salt, were duly provided for; -"With all thy offerings thou shalt offer salt," (ii. 13). The hides were also the priests', except in the case of the "whole burnt offerings."

An abundant living was thus provided for the priests, as they alleged, by Yahvè himself; and the quantity of occasions for these "offerings,"-made by the regulations respecting "cleanness" and "uncleanness," etc.,is remarkable. The eating of fat and of blood made a man "unclean" and liable to be "cut off from his people," (vii. 23-27). It was of course very difficult, with the best intentions, to avoid eating some fat and blood with the lean meat.

The same dread penalty of cutting off from

the people was threatened against him who should slaughter an animal, "in" or "out of the camp," without bringing it, or some "offering," to the tabernacle, (xvii. 3-5). But a fearful list of "sins" was manufactured by the regulations, of which the people were expected to be ignorant, as the documents were in the priests' hands. Chap. v. 17, says; -"If a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity, (18). And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.”

Man's innate sense of purity, the best and holiest of guides, with which he is endowed for far nobler purposes, was played upon with the object of producing "trespasses and the consequent "offerings." A long list of animals was drawn up and put into the mouth of Yahvè, (chap. xi. I, etc.,) of which, by an arbitrary distinction, many were declared "unclean," though excellent and wholesome for eating, such as the rabbit and hare, (5, 6). There seems no good reason, except taste, for not eating camels' flesh, and pork is, under most circumstances and among all nations, a wholesome and favorite meat. Yet these as well as many other ordinary and healthful viands, were pronounced "unclean," and placed in the same category of "abominable" things as the vilest sins, such as those

I

The liability of the hog to give the infection of trichinosis can hardly have been the cause, (though suggested by learned Hebrew divines,) of a prohibition which extended equally to the camel, the oyster (10,) snail, (30,) swan, and the eagle, etc. The gratuitous finesse of this explanation, deduced from modern science, of laws which knew no better cure for leprosy than a charm, appears when we consider that eating of meat raw, or "with the blood in it," being rigorously forbidden, trichinosis had already been, by this, rendered impossible. If we are to see supernal wisdom in this prohibition, why is it not also conspicuous in the charm for leprosy, - in the law of retaliation, -in that of private vengeance for homicide, - in the stoning of brute beasts as accountable creatures, etc.?

mentioned in chap. xviii. Merely to touch the carcass of an "unclean" beast, bird, or insect, made a man "unclean," and to eat them was sin, and required a "trespass" offering. Ovens, ranges and pots, touched by the bodies. of "unclean" animals, were to be broken to pieces, (35). The densest ignorance of natural history is shown in these orders, impiously put into the mouth of God. The birth of children made the mother, (poor woman,) unclean,' and she must offer to Yahvè, or say at once to the priests, a spring lamb or a pair of pigeons, (xii).

Chapter xiii. is interesting as showing the efforts of a primitive people to deal with the terrible Eastern plague, leprosy. The priest's services in this case may have been of some use, in the utter absence of medical knowledge, for preventing the spread of contagion, though of course useless to the unfortunate leper. The only attempt to cleanse him is by a barbarian charm, ordained by "the Lord" as usual, (xiv. 1−7); — he is to be sprinkled with blood from a bird killed over running water; - the aspersion being done with a live bird, "and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop," all which are dipped in the blood and shaken over him seven times; the live bird is then let go, to fly away with his leprosy, (as, in the "scape-goat" business, the goat ran away with the people's sins, xvi. 21,) and he is pronounced clean! If the cure hold good 'seven days," then three lambs, and three measures of flour, and a "log" of oil must be forthcoming from the patient, and the priest, "that maketh him clean," shall "wave them before the Lord," (12,)- and then, --"as the sin offering is the priest's, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy"! (13). A commutation is made for the poorer faithful. The same mummeries are performed for the "cleansing" of a mildewed house, (xiv. 33-53).

66

The famous "scape-goat," (chap. xvi.,) who carried the people's sins out into the desert, is with much reason considered by some critics, (from the identical name, Azazel,

The origin of the "churching" of women among Christians.

given it,) to have been originally an offering to the evil spirit Azazel, who dwelt in the desert.

Chapter xviii. 25, "And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." The righteous and unsparing indignation against impurity,' - a noble anger which Yaishooa afterwards knew how to turn away from the sinner while letting it burn against the sin, — is one of the strongest evidences of the existence of Deity and His presence in the heart. There is nothing to warn against brutalizing indulgence in the brutal part of our nature; the high sense of purity is an instinct of the nobler, undying part, which intuitively feels and shrinks from the injury and contamination of impurity even before it has actually experienced those debasing effects; - and furthermore, this instinct is inseparable in our minds from the recognition of a higher Being as its source, who in this manifestation is felt to be, at once, our guide and our judge. The feeling of the early Hebrew leaders, that the abominations of sodomy and bestiality deserved no quarter, again reminds us of the experiences of the IranoAryans and their indignation against the sodomites whom they encountered in their march. It is only natural that a purer and stronger race should exterminate one given. up to debasing vice, however savage such justice seems.

It is nevertheless to be remembered, that the account of the revoltingly low morals of the Kenaani, comes solely from the Hebrews who so savagely exterminated them, and who needed a pretext for doing so. The morality of some of the Hebrew clans themselves, was at a horribly low level, judging from their own accounts;

What is sin;-impurity? An act or thought out of harmony with the pure, holy life, which in all creatures moves in the normal direction of advancement and development, towards Perfection. The instinct-guided lower animals commit no monstrous or impure acts; this is almost without exception; the exceptions, -perverted instincts, lead to degradation. Man, who is his own master, has nevertheless, within, a Guide which shows him the line of conduct tending to sound, all-sided development, and in harmony with Its own Life. Deviation is punished by remorse; wilful and continued deviation infallibly leads to degradation.

(see Judg. xix. 22, etc.). The execrable conduct of the Benjamites, there recorded, was, it is true, condignly punished by the other tribes, the same bloody justice being dealt to them as to the Kenaani, (chap. xx., etc.). Still, the accusations against the "inhabitants of the land," by the land-pirates who robbed and slaughtered them, must needs be regarded with suspicion.'

While, therefore, it is not now possible to decide whether or no the Hebrews were really, as they pretended, more free from the degrading vices rebuked in this chapter, than the autochthones and true owners of the country which they affected to claim as their own through the mysterious right of "promise," - none the less is the righteous hatred of impurity, - placed by the text in the mouth of Yahvè,-a part of true, essential, and practical religion.

Chapters xix. to xxiii. contain regulations for the conduct and morals of priests and people, many of them excellent, others merely eccentric, such as the forbidding the use of garments "mingled of linen and woollen," (xix. 19).2

The remainder of "Leviticus," being mostly special Hebraic regulations, without importance to future religion, may be passed over with the remark that it is obviously of much later date than the period assigned in xxvii. 34, -or the commencement of the journey from Egypt to "Canaan."

The narrative of the marvellous march from Egypt is resumed in "Numbers," and as Homer introduces his catalogue of ships and warriors in the midst of his "Iliad"

The great Hebrew hero "Samson," (Shimsh-on, the "Sun-One" or divine Sun,) is represented as guilty of sodomy even while under inspiration from the "breath," ("Spirit," English version,) of Yahvè;— (Judg. xiv. 20). The language of the original, in this passage, has been modified in our version so as not to shock modern readers.

2 This prohibition is placed, (in the text,) upon the ground of Yahve's objection to all "mixtures" as impurity. Josephus' explanation, (Antiquities, iv. 8, § 11,) that such "mixed" garments were reserved for the priests, is of course directly in contradiction of the two others, favorite among divines, -(1,)—that the practice was objected to, as an usual one among idolaters, - and, (2,)—as in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, that it was contrary to the general idea of holy purity and simplicity.