not to be discovered by recourse to the sacred lot." Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Art. 304.]

§. 370. ON THE QUESTION, WHETHER PRIESTS AND LEVITES WERE PUBLIC TEACHERS.

The priests and Levites, while the government continued a theocracy, were ministers both to the church and the state; but they were not, like the priests under the Gospel, teachers of the people. Not being instructors of the people, in the usual sense of the word, they were not required to reside in the cities and villages occupied by the rest of the community, but dwelt in cities of their own; a circumstance which of itself proves that they were not public instructors.

Whilst we say they were not teachers of the people in the usual sense of the word instructor, we are willing to admit that they were their teachers in the following respect. They had the superintendence of the ceremonies and regulations which respected the instituted mode of worship; they appointed the festival days; guarded against sacrifices being offered to other gods than Jehovah; saw that no unlawful victims were presented, and no illegal ceremonies employed; determined what was clean and what was unclean; and, furthermore, in the character of civil judges, decided what was in accordance with the law, and what was not.

The passages in which they are represented as teaching the people, (for instance, Deut. xxxiii. 10, and Mal. ii. 6—9,) have reference to such duties as have now been hinted at. Compare 2 Chron. xv. 13; Hosea, iv. 6; and Micah, iii. 11.

If it be objected to the ground which we take on this question, that king Jehoshaphat sent out, on a certain time, Levites for the express purpose of teaching the people in religion, (2 Chron. xvii. 7-9,) the answer is, it is true that he did so; but it was, nevertheless, an extraordinary and solitary instance.

After the Captivity, we do indeed find the priests once called upon to render into the Aramean dialect the passages of the law which had been publicly read in the Hebrew; but we do not find them addressing the people themselves, Neh. viii. 7. Respecting those who sung psalms in the temple, it may be remarked, that they were in truth the instruments of communicating salutary

instruction to their hearers; but they were very unlike the public teachers in the church at the present time.

Furthermore, the priests, by the sacred ceremonies which they performed, revived religious principles in the minds of the people; but this, certainly, did not constitute them public teachers of religion, in the customary sense of the words.

THE PROPHETS approached nearer to the pastors of churches, or ministers of the present day; but still they differed from them in many respects. For instance,

I. They were the immediate messengers from God, and came with a more exalted authority.

II. They had the liberty of expressing their sentiments on civil as well as on religious matters.

III. Their communications were made only to the more informed part of the people.

IV. They did not instruct at stated periods; but were teachers extraordinary, who taught according to the exigency of the times. Those prophets who collected assemblies on the sabbaths and new moons, approached the nearest of any to the religious teachers under the Christian dispensation.

§. 371. OFFICERS IN THE SYNAGOGUES.

The mode of conducting religious instruction and worship at the present day in Christian churches, is derived, for the most part, from the practices which anciently prevailed in synagogues. Yet there were no regular teachers in the synagogues who were officially qualified to pronounce discourses before the people; although there were interpreters, 19270, 192709, who rendered into the vernacular tongue, viz. the Hebræo-aramean, the sections which had been publicly read in the Hebrew.

The synagogue preacher, 17, whose official business it is to address the people, is a personage that has been introduced in later times; at least we find no mention of such an one in the New Testament. On the contrary, in the time of Christ, the person who read the section for the sabbath, or any other person who was respectable for learning and had a fluency of speech, addressed the people, Matt. iv. 23; Luke, iv. 16-21; Acts, xiii. 5, 15; xv. 21.

The other persons who were employed in the services and go

Ff

vernment of the synagogue, in addition to the one who read the Scriptures, and the person who rendered them into the vernacular tongue, were as follows:

I. The ruler of the synagogue, àpxiovváywyos, no??n wis¬, who presided over the assembly, and invited readers and speakers, unless some persons, who were acceptable, voluntarily offered themselves, Mark, v. 22, 35-38; Luke, viii. 41; xiii. 14, 15; Acts, xii. 15.

II. The elders of the synagogue,, perßúrepo. They appear to have been the counsellors of the head or ruler of the synagogue; and were chosen from among the most powerful and learned of the people hence they are called agxoáywyn, Acts, xiii. 15. The council of elders not only took a part in the management of the internal concerns of the synagogue; but also punished transgressors of the public laws, either by turning them out of the synagogue, or decreeing the punishment of thirty-nine stripes, John, xii. 42; xvi. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 24.

III. The collectors of alms, e, diákovoi, deacons. There can be no doubt that there were officers of this nature in the synagogues at the time of the Apostles, although the office differed from that which it was in the early ages of the Hebrews, Acts, vi. 1, et seq.

IV. The servants of the synagogue, 17, innpétys, Luke, iv. 20, whose business it was to reach the Book of the Law to the person who was to read it, and to receive it again, and also to perform other services. The ceremonies which prevail in the synagogues at the present day, in presenting the Law, were not observed in the time of our Saviour.

V. The messenger or legate of the synagogue, hay nhự This was a person who was sent from synagogues abroad to carry alms to Jerusalem, 1 Cor. xvi. 1-4; Philipp. ii. 25. This name (messenger of the synagogue) was applied likewise to any person who was commissioned by a synagogue, and sent forth to propagate religious knowledge, 2 Cor. viii. 23. The person, likewise, was denominated the messenger, ἄγγελος, ἄγγελος τῆς ἐκκλησίας, etc., who was selected by the assembly to recite the prayers for them; the same that is called by the Jews of modern times the synagogue-singer or CANTILATOR, Rev. ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; iii. 1, 7, 14; Vitringa DE SYNAGOGA VET., lib. iii. part i. c. 1 et 2; part ii. 6. 1-3.

NOTE. The Jews anciently called those persons who, from their superior erudition, were capable of teaching in the synagogue, 7, shepherds or pastors. They applied the same term, at least in more recent times, to the elders of the synagogue, and also to the collectors of alms, or deacons.

The ground of the application of this term in such a way is as follows: the word D is, without doubt, derived from the Greek word úgyos, bread, or a fragment of bread; and, as it is used in the Targums, it corresponds to the Hebrew verb, 77, to feed. It is easy to perceive, therefore, how the word might be applied to persons who sustained offices in the synagogue in the same way that is applied to kings, etc.

In the time of Christ, however, learned men generally were called by this name, (,) pastors; in allusion to the opinion which prevailed among the Stoics, that wise or learned men alone were true kings. Comp. Philo DE AGRICULT. p. 150.

CHAPTER V.

OF SACRED THINGS.

§. 372. ON THE QUESTION, WHAT IS A SACRIFICE?

A sacrifice is that which is offered directly to God, and is in some way destroyed or changed; which is done, as far as respects the flesh employed in the sacrifice, by burning it; and as far as concerns the libation, by pouring it out. ["It differs from an oblation in this; in a sacrifice, there must be a real change or destruction of the thing offered; whereas an oblation is but a simple offering or gift." CALMET.]

It is, accordingly, to be understood, that neither the wood necessary for cherishing the fire of the altar, nor any presents which might at any time be offered for the use of the temple or sanc

;תְּרוּמָה and מַתָּנָה קָרְבָּן tuary, are properly called sacrifices, but

words which, it is true, are in some instances applied to sacrifices, but which are, nevertheless, of more general signification, and comprehend every thing that was in any way employed in, or offered for sacred purposes.

§. 373. ON THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICES.

Sacrifices, according to the accounts given us in Genesis, were coeval with the existence of the human race, Gen. iv. 3—5; viii. 20; xii. 7; xiii. 4; xv. 9-21; xxii. 13. Moses, therefore, merely fixed more definitely than hitherto had been done, the ceremonies which were to be employed when sacrifices, which existed among all ancient nations, were offered. (Compare Lev. i. 2.) With respect to the origin of sacrifices, whether it was human or divine, it must be admitted that they cannot be shown, by clear and decisive arguments, to have arisen originally from any direct communications from God, since no express divine command to this effect is recorded; and since their origin may be explained, by a reference to a principle of gratitude, which would prompt men to offer to God a portion of those gifts which they had received.

On the other hand, it is by no means clear that they were not of divine origin, since the accounts in the fragmentary documents, which compose the first eleven chapters of Genesis, are very concise; and it is possible that the divine communications from which they may have originated, are omitted in those accounts; the more so, when it is remembered that God, in Gen. xv. 9. commands sacrifice to be offered, and in other places approves of this religious rite. If it should be objected, that in some passages sacrifices are represented as not having the approbation of God, viz. in Is. i. 11–18; Jer. vi. 20; Hos. vi. 6; Mal. i. 10, the answer is, that the discourse in those passages is concerning sacrifices, as mere rites, or efficacious means of themselves, without taking into consideration the state of the mind. Furthermore, it has been clearly shown by Ernesti, (Vindicia Arbitrii Divini in Religione Constituenda,) that it was not unworthy of God, and not opposed to the equity of his character, to introduce arbitrary religious exercises, or ceremonies of such a nature, that human reason itself could not object to them as improper, and which suited the infancy of our race.

In defence of the opinion that sacrifices were of divine origin, we observe further, that it is unreasonable to believe that all external worship should have been left to the mere will of the earliest of our race, who were such children in knowledge. This remark is especially true, as far as concerns bloody sacrifices; or