Page images
PDF
EPUB

cised by the respective scribes, together with many interesting and significant peculiarities of each document, may thus be preserved for the curious enquirer; nor, in consulting a book of reference like the present, can any one be seriously incommoded by what he may think an error of excess on my part."

We cannot now describe these Codices, but must be content with extracting a few curious and interesting particulars from Mr. Scrivener's full account of them. One of these Codices is called Codex Leicestrensis, and is the property of the Corporation of Leicester, who allowed Mr. Scrivener to remove it to his own house for the purpose of collating it. This is one of the few manuscripts which contain the whole of the New Testament. It is written on vellum and coarse paper mixed together; yet not "temerè permixtis," as Wetstein states, but arranged pretty regularly in series of two vellum leaves followed by three paper ones, evidently from previous calculation how far the more costly material would hold out. It is not earlier than the fourteenth century. Mr. Scrivener says:

"At the top of the first page this codex exhibits in a beautiful hand the words Ειμι Ιλερμου Χαρκου, then in a later hand • Thomas Hayne. The book is now well bound, and on the cover in very recent gold letters we read, 'Town Library, Leicester, the gift of Mr. Thomas Hayne, 1640,' under the town arms. William Chark was one of the former owners of the celebrated Codex Montfortianus, and is supposed to have lived in the reign of Elizabeth; some of the later changes in the Codex Leicestrensis were made by him, chiefly however in the margin: I suppose he obtained the book from one of the dissolved monasteries. Wetstein, I believe on John Jackson's authority, states that Thomas Hayne, M.A., of Trussington, in Leicestershire, gave the volume to the Leicester library in 1660. A collation of the MS. was first published by Mill; Cæsar de Missy, in 1748, lent to Wetstein a much more accurate one, made by John Jackson and William Tiffin, which he used for his great edition of the Greek Testament; since that period nothing further has been published on the subject which has not been servilely borrowed from Mill and Wetstein. Yet nothing can be more unsatisfactory than their representation of this important document.”

Among the Evangelistaria is a portion of one in a Codex marked (P2). Parham Evangelistarium unciale, No. 1. This volume contains many specimens of early writing on papyrus, vellum, and other materials, in Coptic and other languages, which are minutely described in the Parham Catalogue. The only Biblical fragment in Greek among them consists of three leaves of an Evangelistarium. in large uncial characters, removed from the binding of a MS. of the twelfth century; found at the monastery of Docheirou on Mount Athos. Mr. Curzon obtained them for

asking. The Evangelistarium must have been of about the ninth century.

Lambeth 1185, Carlyle I. 11, is a small quarto of 417 pages, having about twenty-six lines in a page, on bad paper, vilely written, and in a dirty state. "In fact," says Mr. Scrivener, "nothing could be well more unpromising than this MS. on a first glance. Todd assigns it to the fifteenth century: I should be disposed to date it somewhat earlier. It comprehends the Acts and the Epistles in the usual Greek order. On pp. 1-5 is a mutilated roleσis to the Acts, the table of repaλaia being lost; pp. 395-404 exhibit an ill-written synaxarion of the Praxapostolos ; pp. 405-417 ὑποθέσεις and κεφαλαια of the Epistles, from the Galatians to the Hebrews, much torn. In fact the MS. might almost be considered a series of fragments in several different hands."

We are glad to see a goodly list of subscribers prefixed to this volume; but the number is not sufficient to secure for the learned editor any pecuniary remuneration for his labours. He may feel that the work brings its own reward, and we know it does; yet that is no excuse for the British public allowing him to be contented with what men of business and commerce would consider very unsubstantial fare indeed. We hope what we have written may induce some of our readers to purchase the book, the "getting up" of which equals its intrinsic value. But we may well ask, on looking at the results of years of hard labour here presented in an attractive form, How is it that one who has so long proved his competency to help forward the highest learning, should be only Perpetual Curate of Penwerris, with little more, we believe, than a nominal income, although there is plenty of pastoral duty to be performed? This is a state of things quite foreign to the genius of the Church of England, which has made ample provision for her learned priests, so that they may help on the cause of sacred learning in easy temporal circumstances and without much other toil. There is a fault somewhere in relation to this matter, and we should like to see it rectified.

JEWISH SACRIFICES, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST."

IN the following article it is designed to treat of the origin of sacrifices, the various rites and ceremonies by which they have been accompanied, and especially of their religious significance. The materials for the article have been derived from the celebrated work of William Outram, a divine of the Church of England. This work, composed in Latin, was printed at Amsterdam in the year 1688, and is the storehouse from which a large portion of what has been written since its publication, on the subject of sacrifices, has been taken. In presenting the views of Outram, we are not to be understood as, in all cases, agreeing with them.

1. Significance of the term "holy."-Every careful reader of the Scriptures will have noticed a two-fold use of the word holy, The word denotes, in some places, the invariable choice, on the part of God, of that which is morally right. It is thus employed in 1 Pet. i. 15,-" As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." The Scriptures, in the next place, affix the epithet holy to Jehovah, for the purpose of denoting the supremacy which characterizes the divine nature, in relation to every species of excellence, whether natural or moral, his supremacy in wisdom, and power, and dominion. As by reason of this supremacy God is worthy of praise and worship, the word holy is used to signify this worthiness. This is the significance of the word when God is denominated the Holy One of Israel, when his name is said to be holy and reverend.

From this double meaning of the word holy, as applied to Jehovah, arises a double significance of the same word in reference to other objects. In the first sense, as indicative of moral purity, it is used in relation to those who, being endowed with moral powers, are capable of a moral likeness to Jehovah. In the latter sense, the epithet holy is given to beasts and inanimate objects, to denote their separation from profane and secular, to religious uses. Not rational beings alone, but all objects, and times, and places, and all rites and ceremonies which, in any special form, pertain to God or to his worship, are to be numbered among the things which are holy. It is easy to see, therefore, how sacrifices, both in respect to the objects which

a From the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1859. The paper is valuable; and it is thought that its republication in England will be of use to sound theology at the present time.-Ed. J. S. L.

were used as victims, and the ceremonies with which they were offered, should be denominated holy, sacred rites, inasmuch as they have so special a relation to the worship of Jehovah.

2. Origin of sacrifices.—In approaching our general subject, the question of the origin of sacrifices immediately suggests itself. Are we to find their origin in an express command of God, or in the promptings of the mind, independently of any such command? Little more can be done, however, than to state, quite summarily, the considerations which have been urged, by different writers, on the different sides of the question.

Those who attribute the origin of sacrifices to an express divine command, lay much stress upon the consideration, that it is impossible to conceive any other origin. It could never have occurred, they maintain, to the mind of Abel, that the slaughter of innocent animals, the smell of burning flesh, entrails, and fat, could be grateful to the divinity; and that the highest reverence of the mind for Jehovah could be best expressed by rites of this kind. In addition to this argument, the words of the apostle, in the eleventh chapter of the Hebrews: "by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain," are cited. The faith which is commended in this passage, could be, it is said, nothing else than obedience to a divine command. The obedience rendered by Abel to the divine command was the clearer indication of faith, because the command was so strongly in conflict with the natural convictions of the mind. It could indicate faith only upon this supposition.

It is urged upon the other side, that we are not at liberty to refer the custom of sacrifices to an express command of God, because of the silence which is maintained by Moses concerning it. It ought, however, to be considered, in reference to this, that, if the authority of Moses cannot be cited in favour of a divine command, it cannot be cited against it. He leaves the question of the origin of sacrifices entirely open. A command to offer sacrifices may have been given, though it is not spoken of in the writings of Moses. It is not at all surprising that he should pass over the subject in silence. There must have been many matters of no little intrinsic importance, in which a writer so studious of brevity as Moses was compelled to be, could say nothing. He says nothing, for instance, concerning the prophecy of Enoch; nothing concerning the vexation of Lot's spirit in view of the iniquities of Sodom, nothing concerning the preaching of Noah to the antediluvians. The object which he had in view in relating the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, did not require him to set forth, either all that was true concerning them, or all that he knew to be true. His object is merely to

exhibit the innate hatred of Cain towards Abel, and the detestable murder in which it resulted. The question of the origin of sacrifices was entirely irrelevant.

It is urged, again, in opposition to the idea of a divine command, that the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning the faith of Abel, instead of proving the existence of such a command, proves the opposite. For if Abel offered sacrifices in obedience to an express divine direction, and if his obedience, in this instance, illustrated the depth of his faith, why is not this equally true in respect to Cain? Did not he bring his sacrifice to the altar in obedience to the same command, and did not his act betoken the same faith? We know, however, that he was censured for the absence of such a faith. If, on the other hand, Cain believed nothing of any such divine command, then, at the bare prompting of his own mind, he gave back to the Almighty, in the form of sacrifice, a portion of that which the divine bounty had given to him. And if Cain, an irreligious man, led by the mere call of nature, did this, how much more easily may we suppose that Abel was the subject of the same conviction, and rendered to it the same compliance? The assertion that the idea of sacrifices never would have occurred to the mind of such a man as Abel, is met by the counter-assertion that we, who live at such a distance of time from Abel, and with a culture so different from his, and especially amidst religious observances so diverse, are not proper judges as to what would have been likely to suggest itself to his mind, in respect to the most fitting method of honouring God. The case would be somewhat changed, could we believe that sacrifices were essentially at variance with the laws of our moral nature, and with proper views of God. This we know is not the fact, as, at a subsequent period, in obedience to a heavenly command, the Jewish ritual sprang into existence.

In the judgment of those who thus argue, the faith cherished by Abel was essentially distinguished from the state of mind harboured by Cain. It was, in the instance of Abel, an exalted estimate of Jehovah as the Creator of the universe, and the rightful possessor of universal dominion, such as led to the selection of the very choicest of his flocks and herds, as alone fit to be presented in sacrifice to the Almighty. Nothing else could serve as a proper token of reverence to the divinity, and of gratitude to the unwearied benefactor of the world. The absence of such sentiments from the mind of Cain, occasioned the selection of objects for sacrifice that were of inferior worth. He had no true faith in the infinite God, and hence the sacrifices which he brought were so far from being acceptable to God.

« PreviousContinue »