OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CURIST.
*€1.) Ex quo apparet peccatis etiam illorum quos pontifices Aaronici expiare debebant, tentationes atque afilictiones nostras his locis respondere, quarum vis, (2) quam ad nos perdendos habent dum tollitur et ab iis nos auxilio Christi eripimur, peccata nostra expiari dicuntur. (3) Itaque non mirum est cztera quoque que de Aaronicis Sacerdotibus dicuntur, alio sensu ad Christum accommodari, et quedam de illis, de Christo improprie preestantiori tamen sensu accipi.’
- Answ. 1. Where there is any mention made of the offering of Christ for us, it is constantly with respect to our sins, and not to our temptations and sufferings, at least not in the first place. What he is affirmed to do with respect to them, as to the aid, relief, and deliverance which he gives us, is all consequential to his once offering of himself to take away sin. 2. The foundation of the inference which is here made, we have already taken away; namely, that the sinful infirmities of the priests of old, were accommodated unto Christ with respect to natural infirmities, or obnoxiousness unto temptations and sufferings; which we haye shown to be false. Yet hence he would infer that the sins of the people of old, for which the priests offered sacrifice, do correspond in this matter with our temptations and sufferings; that as they offéred sacrifices for real sins, so Christ's sacrifice is our relief from temptations and sufferings. The force of the reason pretended lies in this, that because the priests of the order of Aaron had sins themselves, therefore they offered sacrifices for the sins of the people, those which were truly and really so. But whereas the Lord Christ had no sins of his own, but only temptations and sufferings, thezefore the sins offered for were temptation and sufferings. Nothing can be more absurdly imagined. For both those qualifications, that he had no sin, and that he was tempted, were necessary to his offering for us, and for our sins; being made sin for us, and sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, bearing our sins in his body on the tree. 2. Is this all, therefore, that the great discourses of Crellius concerning the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, his being a propitiation for our sins, his offering himself unto God for us, with the Jike magnificent expressions of sacerdotal actings, do amount unto; namely, that he frees us by his power from temptations and afflictions, with all the efficacy they have to destroy us? Is this, I say, to offer himself ta God a true, perfect, complete expiatory sacrifice? Were it not much better wholly to deny that Christ was a high priest, or that he ever offered himself to God, than to put such strained and futilous senses on these expressions? And, 3. Because these men will have it so, all things must be spoken properly of the Aaronical priests, though they were ‘umbratile, typical, figurative, temporary, and liable to such infirmities as exceedingly eclipsed the glory of the office itself. But all things spoken of the Lord Christ to the same purpose, must be improper and metaphorical, and denote things of another nature, only called by the names of priesthood and sacrifice, in allusion unto them and to those things, who and which were appointed and ordained of God for no other end or purpose, but that they might prefigure him in the discharge of his office. And then to salve the matter, the things so improperly assigned unto Christ, must be said to be more excellent than the things that are properly ascribed unto the Aaronical priests, when indeed they are not, nor to be compared unto them; and if they were, yet would not that prove hut that Aaron, though not absolutely, yet as unto the office of the priesthood, was more excellent than Christ, as being properly a priest, whereas the Lord Christ was so only metaphorically, which is a diminution as to that particular..
He closeth his discourse: ‘Istud adhuc antequam hine abeamus notare libet, Paulum Rom. xv. 17, licet de munere suo apostolico loquatur, cujus vis circa homines primo versabatur et quod, ut cum Grotio loquamur, erat pro Deo aut Christo apud homines, tamen quia ad sacrificia sacerdotiumque alludit dicere, se habere gloriationem, seu quod glorietur in Christo Jesu 7a προς Θεὸν, in iis que apud Deum.’
Answ. This observation doth no way impeach the force of the testimony produced by Grotius. He intended no more by that expression, τὰ προς ject of what was so performed, which certainly, unless some great reason be produced to the contrary, must be acknowledged to be the sense of the words, But Grotius proves his intention, from the matter treated of, which is sacrifices; and if they are not offered unto God, and that for men, they are not at all what they are called. Andin comphance with this sense, the apostle respects the discharge of his conscience towards God in the work of his ministry, wherein he had immediately to do with him. For although men were the object of his ministry, yet he received it from God, and to him he was to give an account thereof. Wherefore he only declares, how he had acquitted himself sincerely in that whole work, which was in an especial manner committed unto him of God, and whereof he was to give unto him a peculiar account.
§ 18. I had sundry reasons why I chose to insist on a particular examination of these discourses of Crellius. For it is confessed, that none among our adversaries have handled those things with more diligence and subtilty than he. It was necessary therefore to give a specimen, as of his strength, so of his way and method, whereby he seeks to defend his opinions. And every impartial reader may see in the discussion of what he allegeth or pleadeth, that the whole of his defence is made up of tergiversations, equivocations, and plausible diversions from the cause under debate. Besides, E have had sundry opportunities hereby to declare many things belonging to the nature and discharge of the priesthood of Christ, which would not conveniently be reduced unto other heads, And I was willing also to cast these things into this place by themselves, to avoid all controversies as much as possible in the exposition itself, though I constantly detect the falsehood of this man’s interpretations, as that of others who either follow him or comply with him. And hereby also perhaps some who are less exercised in the sophistry of these men, may learn somewhat how they are to be dealt withal,.
§ 1. Prefigurations of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. § 2. The original, use, and practice of sacrifices before the law. Rabbinical conceits on Ps. lxi 32. Instances of the sacrifices of the patriarchs. Occasional, not stated. § 3. No office of priesthood from the beginning. Men bound to offer sacrifices every one for himself. § 4. Sacrifices in families; before the law, and afterwards among the heathen; andinthechurch. § 5. B whom those sacrifices were offered. § 6. This farther inquired into. § 7. The rights of primogeniture. What Jacob took from Reuben. Gen, xlix. 3. § 8. Jews’ apprehension of the rights of the first-born. § 9. The right of sacrificing continued to particular persons before the law; and to fathers of families, § 10. The first rise of the priesthood in greater communities, by lot or suffrage. § 11. How far annexed to the kingly office. § 12. Inquiry into the original of the priesthood among the Egyptians.. § 13. The story of the Hycsos in Manetho applicable to the Hebrews only. § 14. Who were the priests of Egypt. § 15. The wise men, magicians, sorcerers of Egypt and of the Chaldeans.
§ 1. Sundry things concerning the priesthood of Christ, and those the most material that relate thereunto, we have now passed through. But we know withal, that although the foundations hereof were laid in the eternal counsels of God, and although a revelation was made of them in the first promise, immediately upon the entrance of sin, yet the Son of God was not actually manifested in the flesh, for the execution of those counsels, and for the discharge of that office, until the fulness of time came, after the expectation of a multitude of ages. In the meantime, there were certain prefigurations of it instituted of God in the church, to keep up and direct the faith of mankind, unto what was to come, in sacrifices and a certain typical priesthood; with emanations from them into the practice of the nations of the world. Now what is worth our inquiry, with reference unto these prefigurations of the priesthood of Christ, may be referred to these four heads. 1. The state of things in general with respect unto priesthood and sacrifices in the church, before the»giving of the law. 2. The peculiar priesthood of Melchisedec, which fell within that period of time. 3. The institution cf the Aaronical priesthood at Mount Sinai, with the nature and duration of that office, the garments, sacrifices, laws, and succession of the high priests, in particular. 4. The rise, occasion, and usage of a priesthood among the nations of the world. From all these we may learn, both what God thought meet previously to instruct the church in, concerning the future glories of the priesthood of Christ, and what presumptions there were in the light of nature, concerning the substance of that work which he was to accomplish,
§ 2. Our first inquiry will be, as unto what monuments remain of either sacrifices or of the order of priesthood, from after the first promise and the institution of expiatory oblations, unto the solemn giving of the law in the wilderness, where all things were reduced into a methodical instructive order.
The first institution of sacrifices, and revelation of an acceptable worship of God in and by them, I have declared before, and elsewhere discussed and proved at large. Hereupon, as it is evident from many particular instances recorded in the Scripture, that sacrifices were offered before the law, it is highly probable, that Adam himself, after he had received the promise, which gave life and efficacy unto that kind of sacred service, did offer sacrifices unto God. And this some do suppose, and that not unwarrantably, that he did with the beasts with whose skins he was clothed, and that by the immediate direction of God himself. Hereby the whole of those creatures were returned to God, and not their carcases left to putrefy on the earth. And so the whole was an illustrious exemplification of the promise newly given; or a type and representation of Christ and his righteousness. F'or as he was to be our real sacrifice of atonement, to expiate our sins, so are we said to put him on, or to be clgthed with his righteousness. So typically was our first father, after his receiving the promise, clothed with the skins of the beasts which were offered in sacrifice to make atonement. And therein was Christ a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. And these beasts seem rather to have been sheep or goats, than the greater cattle of the herd; their skins being most meet for clothing. The Jews supposed that Adam sacrificed an ox or a bullock. Soin the 'lar- gum on Ps. Ixix. 32. “tp DIN APT MTA Dp Tn Ὑ2 op ΣΝ sawn smpdnd sD waTpT, ‘My prayer shall please God more than the fat and choice bullocks, which Adam the first man offered, whose horns went before the dividing of the hoofs. To the same purpose Rashi comments on the plice, WaIPA NIDW PWN OW AMPTAY Iw NIT AD Twn, &e. ‘This is the ox which Adam the first man offered, which was created in his full stature, and they called him “WW an ox or bullock in the day wherein he was brought; and he was like a bullock of three years old. And his horns went before his hoofs, for his head came first out of the earth when he was made, and his horns were seen before his hoofs.’ It may be there is no more intended in this fable, but an account of the order of those words, D573 j7pP7, wherein the order of nature, the bringing forth of horns, being placed before dividing of the hoofs, seems to be inverted; though nothing indeed be intended but the description of a bullock fit for sacrifice. But the authors of the fable may yet have had a further reach. The Psalmist in that place, prefers the moral and spiritual duties of obedience before sacrificing. This they will not allow to be spoken with reference to the sacrifices of the law, and therefore put it off unto that of Adam, which they make their conjectures about. After this example Cain and Abel offered sacrifices; Gen. iv. And Noah, Gen. viii. 20. And Melchisedec, as we have shown, Gen. xiv. 20. And Abraham, Gen. xv. 19, 20, xxii. 13. And tsaac, Gen. xxvi. 25. And Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxv. 3, 7. And Job, ch. 1. 5, xhi. 8. Express mention of more sacrifices before the giving of the law I do not remember. Not that I think these were all the sacrifices, which were offered according to the mind of God in that space of time. I doubt not but all the persons mentioned, and multitudes besides, did often, in those days, offer sacrifices to God, thereby testifying their faith in the promise, and expectation of the great expiatory sacrifice that was to come. Oblations were not yet indeed fixed to times and seasons, as the most of them, especially the most solemn, were afterwards under the law. And therefore, I suppose, that the offering of these was occasional, upon some appearance of God to them; on great mercies received; in times of great dangers, troubles, or perils to themselves and families; when they were in doubts and perplexities about their affairs, and would inquire of God for direction, they betook themselves unto this solemn service, as the instances on record do manifest. And the only solemn sacrifices we read of among the heathen, derived by imitation from the patriarchs, were for a long season such as were in the times of approaching wars, after victories, or upon the solemn covenanting of nations or rulers, who yet in process of time also made use of stated solemn sacrifices, and those that were confined to the interests of private families.
§ 3. It doth not appear, that there wasas yet any peculiar office of priesthood erected or instituted. But the persons who enjoyed the revelation of the promise, and the institutions of sacrifices, may be considered two ways. 1. Personally. 2. As members of some society natural or political. Families are natural societies. Greater voluntary combinations for the preservation of human conversation unto all the ends of it, we may call political societies. Consider men in the first way, and every one was his own priest, or offered his own sacrifices unto God. Not that every one was instated in that office; for to make an office common to all is to destroy it. For it includes an especial privilege, faculty, power, and duty; which being made common, their being ceaseth. But every one was then to perform that duty for himself, which upon the erection of the priesthood was confined and limited thereunto. It doth not therefore follow that because every one was to offer Ὁ sacrifice, that therefore every one was a priest in office. God giving out the prefigurations of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ πολυμέρως, by ‘distinct parts and degrees; he ordained the duty of sacrificing, before he erected an office for the peculiar discharge of it. Thus Cain and Abel, as we have before observed, offered their own sacrifices, but could not both of them be priests, nor indeed was either of them so. Nor was Adam, nor was it possible‘he should be so, before the increase and multiplication of his family. For a priest is not of one but must act in the name of others. Wherefore sacrifices being a worship prescribed to believing siriners, every one in his own person was to attend to it, and did so at stated times, or on solemn occasions, according as they apprehended the mind of God requiring it of them.
§ 4. Secondly. As persons were united into any community natural or political, this worship was required of them in that community. For this is a prescription of the law of nature, that every society, wherein men do coalesce according to the mind of God, should own their dependence on him, with some worship common unto, and to be performed in the name of, the society. Especially is it,so with respect of that society, which is the foundation of all others, namely, a household or family. So God gives to Abraham the testimony of sincerity, that he would order and take care of his worship in his family, Gen. xviii. 19. Hence there were sacrifices peculiar to families before the law, wherein it cannot be doubted, but the father of the family was the sacred administrator. So Job offered burntofferings for himself and his family, ch. i. 5. And Jacob for his, Gen. xxxy. Yet are they not hereon to be esteemed priests by office, seeing they had their warrant for what they did from the light and law of nature, but the office of the priesthood depends on institution. And such family sacrifices were famous among the heathens. An eminent instance hereof the Roman historian gives us in C. Fabius, who, when Rome was sacked by the Gauls, and the capitol besieged, upon the stated time of the solemn worship and sacrifices of the family of the Fabii, passed through the enemy’s camp to the Quirinal hill, and discharged the accustomed ‘ sacra, returning to the capitol without disturbance or affront from the enemy, Liv. lib. 5. And the family ceremonies in the sacrifice of an ox unto Hercules, by the Potitii and Pinarii, were adopted by Romulus and Numa, for the use of the whole people, the posterity of those families being made as it were their public priests thereby. And after they had confirmed the administration of their ‘sacra, in public solemnities for the whole community, yet they left it free to single persons and families, to sacrifice for themselves as they saw good. For as they took up the former course, probably from the form and example of Mosaic institutions, so they retained the latter, from the original practice and tradition of the world. Kyven the meanest of the people continued their family libations. ‘Sacrima’ they called the wine which your countrymen offered to Bacchus, as Festus testifies; and ‘Carpar’ the vessel out of which they drew the wine whereof they made a libation to Jupiter. ‘Struferta’ and ‘Suovetaurilia, were the sacrifices of poor families. And something in resemblance of this original practice continued among the people of God after the giving of the law. So the family of Jesse had a yearly sacrifice, which was a free-will offering and a feast thereon, 1 Sam. xx. 6. But it may be, by the Da‘ M23 there intended, was only a feast, at which there was a slaughter of beasts. If a sacrifice be intended, the time and place were irregular. Or if the whole were pretended by Dayid, yet is it hence
ὁ 5. Persons united into greater societies for the end of human conversation, had, as we observed, the use of sacrificing among them as such, and which they were by the light of nature directed unto. So was it among the Israelites, when the twelve original families being multiplied into so many numerous tribes, were by common consent united into one people or nation, without any policy, rule, or order peculiarly accommodated unto the whole community. This was the condition of that people before the giving of the law, the bonds of this union being consanguinity, agreement in design, outward state in the world, with respect to other nations, all under the conduct of divine Providence unto a certain designed end. In this state there were some that offered sacrifices for the whole people, Exod. xxiv. 4, 5, ‘Moses built an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel, and he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord.’ It is probable these young men were the same with those who are called the priests, ch. xix. 22, 24, when as yet the office of the priesthood was not erected.
§ 6. There hath been great inquiry who these priests were; or who they were who thus offered sacrifices for families or greater associations, and by what means they were invested with that privilege. By most it is concluded that they were the first-born of the families and tribes, and that the right of the priesthood, before the giving of the law, was a branch of the primogeniture. But whatever similitude there may be in what the light of nature directed to, and what was after sacredly appointed, yet this opinion will not easily be admitted by them, who judge it necessary to resolve the original of the priesthood, into a voluntary institution, as that which was to be typical and representative of the priesthood of Christ, which must be an immediate effect and emanation of divine wisdom and grace. Yet some suppose that this opinion may be confirmed by the example of Melchisedec, who first was called a priest of God, and whom they suppose to have been Shem, the eldest son of Noah. But the whole of this argument is composed of most uncertain conjectures. It is uncertain whether Shem were the eldest son of Noah, and most probable that he was not so; it is more uncertain whether Melchisedec were Shem or not, yea it is at the next door of the highest certainty, that he was not so. And it is absolutely certain that he was not a priest, on any account common to him with others, but by the immediate call or appointment of God; for had it been otherwise, when the Lord Christ was made a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec, he must have been so according to that common order whereof his priesthood was, which is contrary to his singular call to that office. And if an extraordinary instance may contribute any thing to satisfaction in this inquiry, that of Moses is express to the contrary. He was a priest unto God, Ps. xcix. 6, ‘Moses and Aaron among his priests; and there is not any thing peculiar to a priest but he discharged it in his own person; yet was not he the eldest son of Amram his father, but younger than Aaron by three years, who was alive all the while that Moses executed his priesthood. But from these extraordinary instances nothing certain in this case can be concluded. Micah afterwards, when he fell off from the law of institution in setting up a teraphim and graven image, consecrated 2273 IM, one of his sons from amongst them, which he thought meet, without regarding the primogeniture, Judges xvii. 5. I have formerly thought, that the mI 5x Dwar Dow, Exod. xix. 22, 24, the ‘ priests which drew nigh to the Lord,’ which, as was now said, I still suppose and judge to be the same with the young men employed by Moses in the first solemn sacrifice in the wilderness, Exod. xxiv. 5, to have been the first-born of the families. But I now rather judge that they were persons delegated by common consent, or immediate divine designation, which in that extraordinary dispensation supplied the room thereof, to act representatively in the name of the people. For the other opinion is attended with many difficulties, and exposed to sundry exceptions not to be evaded.
§ 7. The rise of this opinion, concerning the office of the priesthood, or peculiar right of sacrificing for themselves and others, being annexed unto the primogeniture, is usually taken from the words and fact of Jacob with respect to Reuben his eldést son, Gen. xlix. 3, 4, ‘Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power; unstable as water thou shalt not excel.’ The Targums make jointly this interpretation of the words. ‘Thou hast a threefold right above thy brethren; ΝΙΝ ΖΞ, the primogeniture, the priesthood and the rule. But seeing thou hast sinned, the primogeniture shall be given to Joseph, the priesthood to Levi, and the rule or dominion to Judah. But their authority, without farther evidence, is not sufficient to determine this case. The privileges of the first-born were certainly great from the beginning. ‘There was 1122 Hw a right of primogeniture founded in the law of nature, determined in the Judicial law unto Israel, and generally owned in some degree or other, among all nations in the world. The foundation of it is expressed in these words of Jacob; “ΣΝ MYND “1D, ‘My might and the beginning of my strength; that is, the spring unto all power and excellency, that was to arise out of his posterity. In him it began, and in him was the foundation of it laid. And the same reason is repeated in the establishment of the law; T™D2m wpwn os WNT ΝῚΤ; ‘He is the beginning of his strength, his is the right of primogeniture,’ Deut. xxi. 17. Hence this right was confined unto the first-born of the father only, and not to the first-born of the mother, if her husband had a son by another wife before. And if a man had more wives at the same time, he that was the first-born of any of them was to have the privilege of the birthright, against all disadvantages on the mother’s part, as if she were hated in comparison of the others, which manifests that it was a law of nature not to be transgressed, nor the right to be forfeited but by personal sin and disobedience, as it was with Esau and Reuben, Deut. xxi, 15—17. There was, indeed, a privilege that belonged unto the first-born of every mother, by virtue of the especial law about 0m 75 him that opened the womb; for every such an one was to be sanctified or separated according to the law, Exod. xiii. 2, which among men was restrained to the male, Exod. xxii. 29, ‘The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give unto me. And, therefore, we have added in way of exposition of this law in’ our translation, ch. xxxiv. 19, ‘All that openeth the matrix is mine’ (that is male.) And it was instead of the first-born males only, that the Levites were taken in exchange,
Num. iii. 40—42. But this was a peculiar ceremonial law and privilege. - There were two things that eminently belonged unto the πρωτοτόκια, or right of primogeniture, before the law, the one whereof was confirmed also under it. And this was the privilege ‘in familia herciscunda,’ or distribution of the estate and inheritance of the family; for whereas every son was to have Ἵπν Dow, Gen. xlviii. 22, one part or shoulder to bear the charge of his own especial family; so the first-born was to have Ὁ ΣΝ “D, Deut. xxi. 17, that is durda, or μέρος διπλουν a double portion of the inheritance. And this, evidently, Jacob took from Reuben and gave to Joseph, when he adopted his two sons, and gave each of them the inheritance of a tribe, Gen. xlvii. 5, 22. And there belonged hereunto civil preeminence and right unto rule. The first-born had a principal honour among his brethren, and when rule and dominion was erected without especial cause and alteration made by God himself, it belonged unto them. So do the words of God to Cain plainly signify. ‘If thou dost well——unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him,’ Gen. iv. 7. And when God transferred in prophecy the birthright from Esau to Jacob, he did it in these words, ‘The elder shall serve the younger, Gen. xxv. 23, which Isaac also in the confirmation of it so expresseth. ‘Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee,’ ch. xxvii. 29, and so he tells Esau afterwards, ‘ Behold I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given him for servants,’ ver. 37. And this was by Jacob taken from Reuben and given unto Judah. Both these are expressly mentioned 1 Chron. v. 1, 2, ‘Reuben was the first-born; but forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright; for Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief‘ruler, but the birthright was Joseph’s.’ I confess the birthright here seems to be confined unto the double-portion only, and is therefore proposed as totally transferred to Joseph, and to have comprised all that was lost by Reuben. The matter of rule is introduced so, as that when God would erect it, he gave it to Judah without depriving any other of a right to it. Iwill not, therefore, be positive, that by the law of nature, or any previous constitution of God, right unto rule belonged unto the primogeniture; but suppose it might be disposed unto the most worthy, as the Roman Epitomator affirms, it was at the beginning of all governments. However, here is no mention of the priesthood which we inquire after.
§ 8. The Mishnical Jews in Massecheth Becaroth Peresh. 8. divide the rights of the primogeniture, in mrt) and m3, the inheritance and the priesthood, and thereon make many distinctions concerning them, who may be the first-born, or have the right of primogeniture, as unto the one, but not unto the other. But by the priesthood, they intend only the dedication of the first-born unto God, upon the law of opening the womb. Now this had no relation to the priesthood properly so called. As far as it had its foundation in the law of nature, it was an offering to God of the first-fruits of the family, all primitiz being due unto him; and hereby was the whole family made sacred and dedicated unto God. For if the ‘first-fruits be holy, the whole lump is holy also,’ Rom. xi. 16. The place, therefore, mentioned in Becaroth, intends not the priesthood; but in Bereshith Rabba, fol. 71, some of them do plainly ascribe the priesthood unto the primogeniture, and so doth Hierome from them, ad Gen. xvii. 27, Epistol. ad Evagr. and elsewhere, as do others also of the ancients. But in the whole law and order of the primogeniture, it is plain that God designed to shadow out the Lord Christ in his offices, when by his incarnation he became the
§ 9. Yet all that hath been spoken, or that may farther be pleaded to the same purpose, doth not necessarily conclude that the right unto sacrificing by way of office, was inclosed to the first-born before the giving of the law; and afterwards we know how it was disposed of by divine institution. There was, therefore, in that state of the church no office of priesthood, but every one performed this duty and worship of sacrifice, ‘ex communi jure’ with respect unto himself, As all were obliged to attend to this worship of God, and express their faith in the promise thereby, so every one who was ‘sui juris, or had the free disposal of himself in all his moral actions, did in his own person attend to his own duty herein. As persons were united into families, and made up one body naturally political by God’s appointment; the ‘pater familias’ had the duty of sacrificing for the whole committed ‘tnto him; herein it is probable he had the especial assistance of the firstborn of the family, whereby he might be initiated into his future duty. Yet was it not afterwards confined to him. For Abel, who was the youngest son of his father, offered sacrifices for himself in his own person, his father and elder brother being yet alive. Ino way doubt but that all the persons on the patriarchal line before the flood, offered sacrifices to God; yet is it most uncertain whether they were all of them the first-born of their respective parents. Abraham, after the flood, offered sacrifice whilst the eldest son of Noah was yet alive, neither was he himself the first-born of his immediate parents. Afterwards, it is probable, that the order and solemnity of public sacrificing, went along in a peculiar manner with the birthright, not that it was a privilege thereof, but that the privilege of the birthright made what they did more extensive and illustrious. But this was continued only whilst a family continued by consent. When it divided, all things returned to their primitive right and practice. So was it when the younger sons of Noah were separated from the elder, they lost not the right of solemnizing the worship of God thereby. And in case the first-born was incapable through sin, idolatry, or apostasy from God, the right of the remainder was not prejudiced thereby, but every one might personally attend to the discharge of his duty herein, which after the giving of the law was not provided for. But this respected men only. Women were afterwards among the heathen admitted unto the office of the priesthood, especially in the idolatries of Juno. But there was no induction towards any such practice, in the light of nature or original tradition. or the ‘ head of the woman is man. And the whole sex generally being supposed under the power of their parents or husbands, nothing remains on record, of their solemnizing sacred worship in their own persons, though some conjectures have been made about Rebekah’s inquiry of God, upon her conception of twins.
§ 10. When greater political societies, beg the products of the light of nature, acting by choice, and on necessity, were established, it was judged needful, or at least useful, not only that every one should offer sacrifice for himself that would, nor only that the head of each family should discharge that duty in the name of the whole family, which vexpressed the two first directions of the law of nature; but also that some one or more should offer sacrifice for the whole community, which had the solemn representation of a sacerdotal office. How these persons were originally designed to this work and office, is a matter left much in the dark, and obscure. The ways whereby God erected this office, and constituted any in the possession and enjoyment of it, are plain and evident. For he did it either by an immediate call from himself, as it was with Melchisedec in one manner, and Aaron in another; or by the constitution of a legal succession of priests, as it was with all the posterity of Aaron, concerning both which we shall treat afterwards distinctly. Our present inquiry is, how or when this order of things came to pass in the world, namely, that some certain persons, under the name of priests, had the administration of sacred things in the behalf of political communities committed unto them. And these are the ways, that may be pleaded with good probability to this purpose. The first is, That the people or communities, judging the duty of public sacrificing and religious administrations to be their duty, and necessary for them as a community, did choose out from among themselves, either by lot or suffrage, the two original ways of all elections, such as they judged meet for that purpose. So Virgil would have Laocoon designed to be a priest to Neptune by lot.
Laocoon ductus Neptuno sorte sacerdos, Atneid. 2.
And in Statius it was by the choice of the people that Theodamus was made the priest of Apollo in the room of Amphiaraus; so he speaks to them, Thebaid. 1. 10.
Non hz nostro de pectore voces; Tlle canit, cui me famulari et sumere vittas Vestra fides, ipso non discordante, subegit.
And when among the Romans the care of sacred things had been devolved on their king, upon his removal the people by suffrage created priests from among themselves, and one under the name of Rex Sacrorum, that by the countenance of the name therein, the office might not in any thing be missed, the civil power being fully transferred unto the consuls. See Dion. Halicarnass. lib. 5. So Livy, ‘Rerum deinde divinarum habita cura, et quia, guzeedam publica sacra per ipsos reges facta erant, nec ubi regum desiderium esset, regem sacrificum creant, lib. 2. And the king of the Sacra at Athens had the same original, as is manifest in Demosthenes. The Dacians so far improved this power, as that having at first made priests unto their gods, they at length made one of their priests to be their god.
And this I take to be one of the principal ways, whereby in the first coalescencies of human society, the order of priesthood came to be erected among them. Possibly in their elections, they might suppose themselves to have received guidance by some supernatural indication, of which afterwards; but it was consent and choice that gave them their authority and office.
§ 11. Secondly. Those who had by any means obtained the rule of the community, knowing that with their power over it, they had an obligation on them to seek its good, did take upon themselves, the care of sacrificing for it, and performed it in their own persons. And there seems to be a natural traduction of the power and right of this kind of priesthood from the fathers of families, unto the heads of political societies, which have a resemblance to them. And thence the heathen writers do generally grant, that the care of the administration of sacred things accompanied the supreme power, so that the kingdom and the priesthood amongst them for a season went together. So Aristotle informs us of the kings in the Heroical times, that is such of whom they had tradition, but no history, Κυριοι ἡσαν τῆς δὲ
κατα πολεμὸν ἡγέμονιας, Kat των Svowy ὅσαι py ἱεροτικαι, “ They were rulers of things belonging to the conduct of war, and had the ordering of sacrifices that were not in an especial manner reserved to the priesthood. Of the reason of which exception I shall afterwards give an account. And again, oTparnyoc ny και δικαστης ὁ Baoieve και προς Tove Oeovg κυριος, Aristot. Polit. lib. 3.‘ The king was general, judge, and lord of things sacred.’ And Cicero, ‘ Apud veteres qui rerum potiti erant, iidem auguria tenebant: ut sapere sic divinare regale tenebant,’ de Legib. lib. 2. The truth is, the use of sacrificing among the Gentiles, by that time we meet with any probable records of things among them, was much restrained, and principally attended to in and with respect to war, or an apprehension of the approach of public calamities. Hence it came to pass, that they who had the chief command in war, had power of sacrificing also. But if it were so, that not only a right of sacrificing for the community occasionally in the times of danger, belonged unto him who presided therein, but that the supreme power ‘and priesthood went together in any greater societies, as derived from the practice of families; it is evident that they were very quickly separated again and vested in divers persons; yet so as still to reserve to kings and generals in war, the privilege of sacrificing expiatory oblations, which they did sometimes by the death of beasts, sometimes of other persons, and sometimes of themselves. For the first mention we have of priests in the world, is distinct from kings in the same place. This was in Egypt, where we find the Cohanim or priests, an order of men by themselves under the power and care of their kings. How they came by that office originally, if we shall suppose that the right of sacrificing for the community went along with regal power and rule, I know not. It may be said, that kings grew weary of that employment, as their greatness, wealth, and empire increased, and so suffered others to be chosen unto it, or designed them thereunto by their own power. Or that ambition and luxury rendering them unfit for the discharge of that office, and negligent in it, the people provided for themselves as they could. Or it may be thought that some such things fell out in those early days of the world as did in latter ages among the Caliphs of the Saracens; for the world in all its varieties, varieth not from itself. These Caliphs being originally the successors of Mahomet, had all power civil and sacred in their hands. But through the sloth of some of them, military men, who had the power and charge of armies in their hands and disposal, took the civil power from them, and making themselves emperors, left only the pontificate to the Caliphs; the principal dignity remaining to them, being an allowance to wear those garments and colours, which they did as successors to Mahomet when they had all the power. See Elmalin. Histor. Saracen. lib. 3. cap. 2. It might have so fallen out with these priests of Egypt; being originally both princes and priests, they were confined to the sacerdotal function, by some of more heroic spirits who deprived them of rule and government, which alteration might constitute one of those changes in their dynasties, which are so much spoken of. Andthence it may be (which Athenzus observes) the priests of Egypt did always wear kingly garments. But these things are only conjectures, and that about matters wrapped up in the greatest obscurity. I rather judge that there was never an ordinary concurrence of both these offices in the same persons; though it sometimes so fell out on extraordinary occasions. As
Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Pheebique sacerdos.
And the most ancient reports among the heathen, both in the Eastern and Grecian traditions, mention these offices as distinctly exercised by divers persons. Homer hath his priests as well as his kings, though that which then was peculiar to them was divination, and not sacrificing.
§ ll. Thirdly. Priests among the heathen might-have their origin from some extraordinary ‘ afflatus, real or pretended. It was with respect to their gods that men had thoughts of sacrificing, or of the way of it. And the world was generally now become utterly εὐ ἃ loss, both as to the nature and manner of religious worship, though the light of nature kept them up to a persuasion that the Deity was to be worshipped; and some small remainders of original tradition, that sacrificing was an acceptable mode of religious worship, still continued with them. But how to exert these notions in practice, or how to express their impressions from tradition, they knew not. But yet they still had an apprehension, that the knowledge hereof dwelt with the gods themselves, and that from them they were to expect and receive direction. In this posture of the minds of men and their consciences, it is no wonder if some quickly pretended that they were divinely inspired, and were as easily believed. For men who are utterly destitute of all means of divine and supernatural direction, are given up to as great an excess in facile credulity, as they are to an obstinate unbelief of the most evident truths, by whom such light and direction hath been rejected. And as this latter frame, at this day discourageth wise and sober men in the proposal of sacred truths, upon the highest and most evident warrant, to the sceptical Atheism of rebels against the light; so the former encouraged crafty impostors to impose their pretended inspirations on the credulous multitude, so that they easily gave up to them the entire conduct of their religious affairs. And Satan himself was sure not to be wanting to so great an occasion of promoting his interest in the world: and therefore, as he had diverted the minds of men before, from the true and only object of all religious worship, entangling them in an endless maze of abominable idolatries, so to secure them to himself in those- tormenting, disquieting uncertainties, whereinto he had cast them, he did actually intermix himself and all his power, in the minds and imaginations of some persons, whom he had designed for the guides of others, in their superstitions. And an appearance of his power and presence with them, was that which instated and fixed them in a peculiar office, of managing things esteemed sacred and religious. This was the certain and undoubted original of the stated solemn priesthood among the heathen, as will yet farther appear.
§ 12. To return therefore whence we have digressed; next to him who was the first priest in office in the world, and that by virtue of divine appointment, (of whom I must treat afterwards distinctly and by himself,) those first mentioned under that name are the priests of Egypt, Gen. xl. 45, xlvii. 22, 26. Concerning them therefore in the first place our inquiry shall be.
It is very probable, that the Egyptians began to have their stated ‘sacra,’ very early in the world. For they were the posterity of him who unquestionably made the first defection from true religion after the flood; and therefore most likely they first improved that superstition, which they embraced in the room hereof. And hence it came to pass, that having chosen both their Deities and the manner of their veneration in the times of barbarity and darkness, before mankind had leisure to improve the remaining light of nature by contemplation, and by arts and sciences, they in their superstition fixed on, and tenaciously adhered unto such observances as were ridiculous and contemptible to all the world besides. In process of time they received many customs and usages in sacred things from Abraham and his posterity, whilst they dwelt amongst them; much, it may be, peculiarly under the rule of Joseph, and more upon the fame and renown of their glorious law, and divine order in religious worship. These customs and usages being observed among them by some Grecian writers long afterwards, divers of late are inclined to believe that the Israelites took them from the Egyptians, and not on the contrary. I mean not any of those superstitious and idolatrous customs, which that people learned from the Egyptians, as weeping for Tammuz, even as they borrowed idolatries and superstitions from all their neighbours round about them, as I have elsewhere declared; but I refer to those institutions themselves, which Moses gave them in the wilderness, and some that God had peculiarly given unto Abraham. Whether a due reverence to divine revelations and institutions hath been observed herein, I shall elsewhere, God willing, make inquiry. In brief, the plainest state of the difference is this: God gives a law of divine worship to his people in the wilderness, declares all the parts and observances of it to be of his own immediate appointment; and in the declaration of his mind he allows not Moses the interposition of any one word or conception of his own, but made him a mere ‘internuntius’ to make known _ his express commands and will to the people; nor did he allow him to do any thing, but what he expressly and immediately ordained. In the meantime making known to the people, that all that they were enjoied was from himself, he straitly forbids them to do any thing in his service, after the manner whereby other nations served their idol gods. Yet notwithstanding it appears afterwards, that sundry of the things which were so instituted and observed amongst them, were observed also by the Egyptians. Hereupon it is inquired, whether the Egyptians learned those things and took up the practice of them from the Israelites, or whether Moses (who indeed had no more to do with the intruding or appointing of those sacred institutions, than hath the present reader whoever he be,) did not learn them in Egypt, and prescribe them in the wilderness to the people. But the inquiry ought to be, not what Moses might learn of and receive from the Egyptians, but what God himself did so, for if we believe the Scripture at all, they were all of his own immediate appointment, without the interposition, of the wit, invention or memory of Moses. And 1 shall say, that if any learned man can produce any one evident testimony, (or but such a one as whose pretence unto a probability of truth, I cannot make manifest to be vain,) of the observation of any one sacred institution, belonging peculiarly unto the system of Mosaical ordinances, among the Egyptians before the giving of the law, I will pass on among the captives in their triumph, for so great an achievement. But certain it is, that men are exceedingly apt to take up with learned conjectures out of heathen writers, though pressing hard on the reputation of sacred truth.
14. An instance whereof, if I mistake not, may be taken from that space of time, and what sets out therein what we have now under consideration. Josephus, in his discourses against Appion, lib. 1. reports somewhat of the history of the Egyptians out of Manetho, a priest of Heliopolis, who wrote his story in the days of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 1600 years after Abraham’s being in Egypt. Out of this man’s writings, and in his own words, he give an acccount of a nation that was called Hycsos, which in the Egyptian language signifieth kingly shepherds. This nation, as he says, entered Egypt and subdued it, holding it for about 500 years, erecting an especial dynasty therein. By these shepherds and their kings, with Josephus, Manetho intended the Israelites and their abode in Egypt, although he mixed the story of it with many fabulous traditions. For under that name and character were they known to the Egyptians, and on account of that profession of life, whence they were so denominated, lived separately from them. This story, with allowances for the fabulous tradition and invention of the reporter, is for the substance of it fairly reconcilable to our> sacred writings; yea, no other interpretation of it is consistent with them, as we shall manifest. But our late learned chronologers are generally of another mind. They will have a nation called by the Egyptians Hycsos, leaving no memorial of any name of their own, nor ground of any tolerable conjecture from whence they came, nor what became of them in the issue, nor why the Egyptians gave them that name, being a composition of what they most adored and most abhorred, to have entered Egypt presently after the death of Joseph, and conquering the whole kingdom, or at least all the lower and principal parts of it, to have erected a kingdom of their own therein. These, they say, were they who oppressed the Israelites, as it is related in Exodus, and under their rule was the people delivered, as in the same story in the reign of Apophus, leaving them to rule in Egypt two or three hundred years after. Concerning this people the principal things observed out of Manetho, are, 1. That they invaded the country in the reign of one Timaus, God being angry with the nation, and that they had no king of their own at their first entrance. 2. That after their entrance they made one from among themselves a king, whom they called Salatis. 3. That this Salatis took care about corn and its measures, with the stipends of soldiers. 4. That he and his successors endeavoured to root out all the Egyptians. 5. That they kept Abaris, (that is Pelusium) with a garrison of 240,000 soldiers, building of some other cities. Now, leaving to others the liberty of their own judgments, I cannot but declare that to me either this whole story is amere coined fable, or it is the Hebrews alone that are intended in it; or that credit is not to be given to our sacred story, as I shall evidently demonstrate. For, 1. If the Hebrews and their abode in Egypt be not intended in this story, what credit is to be given to the writings of this Manetho, and the skill he pretended in the antiquities of his country, or the sacred record from whence he boasted to transcribe his commentaries? for if the state of the Israelites be not here expressed, it is apparent that he had not any notice of it. For Josephus, searching of him no doubt with diligence, to find what he could discover concerning the antiquity and affairs of his own nation, could find nothing in his book, concerning their coming into and departure from Egypt, but this passage only. For what he mentions afterwards about the lepers and mixed people, hath no consistence with the story of the Hebrews, but was a mére figment of the Egyptians designing their reproach, And if this Manetho was utterly ignorant, and had no tradition of what befel his country, in that terrible desolation and ruin, the like whereof never befel any nation under heayen, what reason have we to give the least credit to any of his reports? A man may soberly judge on such a supposition, that all his dynasties and kings, and what fell out under them in ancient times, were mere figments of his own brain, like the story of Geoffry of Monmouth, concerning the succession of kings in this island from the coming of Brutus, which in like manner is pretended to be taken from sacred monastical archives. 2. The Israelites were at that time known by the name of shepherds, as they professed to follow that course of life, whence they were so denominated; and as such they were an abomination to the Egyptians. These things concurring with the ruin that befel Egypt at their departure, issued in sucha fame and tradition as might easily be fabled upon, by Manetho, an idolatrous priest, so long after. But that there should be two sorts of persons, two nations at the same time in Egypt, both strangers, both called shepherds, the one oppressing the other, the Egyptians as it were unconcerned in both, seems rather to be a dream, than to have any thing of real tradition or story in it. Besides, who the one sort of shepherds at that time were, is known to all; but as to the other sort none can imagine whence they came, nor what was the end that they were brought unto. 3. They are said by this Manetho to have come into Egypt without a king, but afterwards to have made one of themselves king, who ‘in time of harvest ordered the measures of corn, and paid men their allowances, (eva ert kara ϑερειαν ἤρχετο Ta μὲν σιτομετρων Kat μισθοφοριαν magexowevoc) which things have so plain a respect to Joseph, that he must shut his eyes who sees him not therein; especially since the times agree well enough. 4. Joseph, who was one of the shepherds, had the exercise of all regal power committed to him, and made laws and statutes, yea, changed the whole political interest of Egypt, and the tenure of their laws, making the king the sole proprietor of the whole soil, leaving the people to hold it of him in a way of tenancy, at a certain rate by the way of acknowledgment and rent. This might well raise a fame of his being a king amongst them. And there is that herein, which overthrows the whole fabulous supposition of the invasion and conquest of Egypt at that time, by another nation. For Moses affirms that those laws of Joseph were in force, and observed in Egypt, unto the day of his writing that story, Gen. xlvu. 20, 23, 25,26. Now this story supposeth, that immediately after the death of Joseph, a new nation came in, who utterly dispossessed the Egyptians of their country and whole interest therein, taking it into their own power, possession, and use. And can any.man think it probable, that the laws made by Joseph about the rights of the king and the people, should be in force, and be observed by this new nation who had conquered the whole, and at first, no man knows for how long, had no king at all? For they were these Hycsos, and not the Egyptians, who according to Manetho as interpreted by our chronologers, ruled in Egypt in the days of Moses. This, in my judgment, so long as men will acknowledge the divine authority of the writings of Moses, is sufficient to discard the whole story. For it is most certain, that things could not be at the same time as Moses and Manetho report, if the Hebrews be not intended by him. And setting aside such considerations, certainly, he who was a person renowned for wisdom and righteousness in the world, the ruler and conductor of a mighty nation, the first and most famous lawgiver on the earth, writing of things done in his own days, and under his own eyes, is to be believed before an obscure fabulous priest, who lived at least 1600 years after the things fell out, which he undertakes to relate. 5. The nation or people unto whom Abraham went down, was to afflict him and his posterity 400 years, and afterwards to be judged of God for their oppression, Gen. xy. 13,14. Now this cannot be affirmed if they first went down unto one nation, and then were afilicted by another, as this story imports. 6. The people with whom the Israelites had to do from first to last in a way of kindness and oppression, are called Misraimites, or Egyptians, constantly. And although these Hycsos should have been in Misraim or Egypt, yet if they were not of the posterity of Misraim, it could not be said in what they did, that it was done by the Misraimites. They were Egyptians who first VOL I, ᾳ 4 received them and kindly entertained them; Egyptians who oppressed them and were their taskmasters; an Egyptian it was that Moses slew for his cruelty; Egyptians whom the people spoiled at their departure, and so in all other instances: whereas, if this story be rightly applied unto another nation, they received nothing but kindness from the Egyptians, and were oppressed wholly by another people. 7. The places which Manetho reports these Hycsos to have held peculiarly in garrison, were most probably those built by the Israelites, whilst oppressed by the Egyptians. [Ὁ 15 generally agreed, that Pithon, which was built by them, Exod. i. 11, was the same with Pelusium; and this the same with Abaris, which the Hycsos are said to maintain with 240;000 men; which great number are said afterwards to have been driven out of Egypt, and to have entered into Syria. He that shall reflect on the truth of the story in Moses, and withal considers the nature of the reports concerning the Hebrews leaving Egypt, in Trogus, Tacitus, and others, will not easily think that any but they are intended. 8. It is evident, that whoever ruled Egypt at the departure of the Israelites, both himself, his whole host, and all the strength of the kingdom, were utterly destroyed. If it be supposed, that those were the Hycsos, and not the Egyptians, and withal as it is said, that the Egyptians in Thebadis, always waged war with these Hycsos, and expected an opportunity to recover their liberty, can it be imagined that they would have let go the advantage now put into their hands, when there was no strength left to oppose them. But this, according to the story, they did no way make use of; but after their destruction and desolation, the Hycsos continued to rule in Egypt 300 years. Wherefore this story, as it is framed by Manetho, and applied by some late learned chronologers, is inconsistent with the writings of Moses; and therefore, with those by whom their sacred authority is acknowledged, it can be no otherwise esteemed, but as a fabulous declaration of that obscure tradition, which the Egyptians had so long after, of the Hebrews being in their country, and the desolation which befel it thereby. ‘Malum habitat in alieno fundo. Had there not been somewhat of real truth in the business, there had been no occasion for this fabulous superstructure. The like account I shall give in its proper place of that other bold, and to speak plainly, - false hypothesis, that many of the Mosaic religious institutions were taken from the usage and customs of the Egyptians in their sacred rites.
ὃ 14. But, to return; the 0275, or ‘ priests,’ mentioned among the Egyptians, were probably princes of the people at the first. And translators are yet dubious whether they should render the word in these places, ‘ priests’ or ‘princes.’ At first the were designed by common consent to take care of the ‘sacra,’ which belonged to the community, which grew into an hereditary office; nor can I give any other probable conjecture concerning them. Appointed they seem to have been to comply with the catholic tradition of sacrificing, or doing something in lieu of it, for the good of the community. And their function continued in principal reputation in after ages, increasing in popular veneration and esteem as superstition increased among them, which was fast enough, until it had even tired itself with its own extrayagancies and excess.
§ 15. Besides these Cohanim, there were in Egypt at the same time other sorts of men, whom we call magicians and sorcerers, whose arts or delusions were afterwards generally followed by the priests of other nations; or it may be upon some neglect of the service of their gods, these men pretending to a familiarity and acquaintance with them, took the office upon themselyes, promising supernatural effects in the execution of it. There seem to be three sorts of them expressed, Exod. vii. 11. These are the D'aan ‘Chacamim;’ and D’pw57, ‘ Mecashphim;’ and pawn, ‘Chartumim.’ The Chacamim, which we render, wise men, are here distinguished from the Mecashphim, or sorcerers; but the Chartumim, or magicians, seem to comprise both the other sorts, the Chacamim and Mecashphim. ‘ Now Pharaoh called the wise men and the sorcerers, now the magicians of Kgypt, they did in like manner with their enchantments. But Gen. xli. 1, the Chacamim, or ‘ wise men,’ are distinguished from the Chartumim or ‘magicians, as they are here from the Mecashphim, or ‘sorcerers; and therefore we shall consider them distinctly.
The D297 are constantly rendered by the LXX. cogor, and all other translations are compliant, the word being of a known obvious signification, and commonly taken in a good sense, ‘wise men.’ For they were the men who afterwards, when the contemplation of things secret and hidden first found acceptance and then applause in Greece, were called σοῴοι and then φιλόσοφοι. But the original of their studies seemed to have been in things magical, curious, and diabolical; in which arts philosophy made its last attempt in the world, under Apollonius and some other Pythagoreans, so, like an ‘ignis fatuus, €xpiring asit began. Wherefore these Chacamim, now of such reputation in Egypt, were such as had separated themselves to the study of curious arts, and the speculation of hidden things, into whose contemplation Satan had variously insinuated himself, giving them an esteem and honour among the common people, on the account of their skill in things to them unknown; they gratifying him on the other hand, in promoting his design by superstition and idolatry. This gave them the title of wise men, which yet possibly in the judgment of those who really were so, was confined to their trade and profession; for we hear not of their use on any other occasion, Exod. vii. 11. -The LXX. render Daar by σοφισται, ‘men subtle to deceive:’ Hence probably in the expression of what was done by their counsel, Luke useth caracogicapevoc, ‘dealt subtilly,’ Acts vii. 19.
Those joined in one place with these wise men, are the DW. The name is originally Hebrew, from 2, ‘ preestigias exercuit.’ The LXX. render it by φαρμακοι, ‘yenefici; and the Targum by WM, ‘ preestigiator,’ ‘jugglers, impostors,’ ard also ‘conjurers.’ They seem to have pretended unto the revelation or discovery of things secret and hidden; whence the Arabic ΠΣ, signifies to uncover, to reveal, to make known. With sucha sort of impostors the world was always pestered. Of old, they were in great reputation, though now they are the scorn of the multitude. Probably they had an access to the administration of things sacred, whence the word in the Syriac denotes ‘ to pray,’ ‘ to administer’ in things holy, and ‘to sacrifice. The Chartumim are those to whom all magical effects are peculiarly assigned. It doth not appear whether they were a peculiar sect, distinct from the other two, or some of them more eminently skilled in magical operations than the rest. The name is foreign to the sacred language, probably Egyptian, though in use also among the Chaldeans, by whom this diabolical skill and practice was imitated from Egypt. The LXX. render them, Gen. xli. eyynta, ‘interpreters, according to the matter in hand, it being the interpretation of the dreams of Pharaoh which was inquired after, wherein also they boasted their skill; Exod. vii. 11, they render eraowot, incantatores, ‘enchanters. The V. L. omits the nam, and to supply that omission, renders ormunda, per in cantationes Egyptiacas, ‘ by their Egyptian enchantments.’ Some render it by Genethliaci, Naas
Ezra gives countenance to, on Dan. ii. calling them nvdnm ‘2n < men skilled in casting nativities,; others by malefici, arioli, magi, necromantici, ‘witches, conjurers, magicians. Targum, OWI: in the common translation, Gen. xli. ‘ magistri, without any reason. It is plain and evident that they were a sort of persons who pretended unto a power of miraculous operation, and made use of their skill and reputation in opposition unto Moses. Their chiefs at that time were Jannes and Jambres, mentioned by our apostle, 2 Tim. 111. 8, as they are likewise spoken of in the Talmud, and are joined with Moses by Pliny, as persons famous in magical arts. It is not unlikely but that this sort of men might have been cast under some disgrace, by failing in the interpretation of the dreams of Pharaoh, the knowledge whereof was of so great importance to the whole nation. This being done by Joseph, whose eminent exaltation ensued thereon, it is not improbable but that they bore a peculiar malice towards all the Israelites, being moreover instigated and provoked by the knowledge and worship of the true God that was among them. This made them vigorously engage in an opposition unto Moses, not only in compliance with the king, but, as our apostle speaks, αντεστησαν, ‘they set themselves against him, which includes more than a mere production of magical effects upon the command of Pharaoh, whereby they attempted to obscure the lustre of his miracles, implying also a sedulous, active, industrious opposition to his whole design. And besides, whereas they knew that Moses was skilled in all the learning of the Egyptians, and not perceiving at first any peculiar presence of divine power with him, they thought themselves sufficient for the contest, until they were forced by the evidence of his miraculous operations, to acknowledge the energy of a divine power, above what they could imitate or counterfeit. The name, as was said, is Egyptian, as was the art they professed. And it is not unlikely but that those which Moses calls, D\2713, ‘ Cohanim,’ were in the Egyptian language called D°27wn, ‘Chashmannim, who are mentioned, Ps. Ixvii. 31, which we render ‘princes,’ who are said to come out of Egypt, professing subjection to the kingdom of Christ; for the word is gyptian, and nowhere else used.
‘There is in Babylonia a peculiar place of habitation assigned to philosophers, born in, or deriving their race from the country called Chaldeans.’ We may take a brief view of them all in their order expressed, Dan. ii. 2. The first are DAWN. They where those to whom all the magical operations in Egypt are ascribed; and the name itself is Egyptian, though some would have it to be of a Hebrew extract. IR. Saadias would derive it from nM, ‘a hole; and DION, ‘shut’ or ‘closed,’ supposing they gave their answers from a hole in the earth, as the oracle of Dodona out of an oak. Some deduce it from WN, as Avenarius and Menasseh ben Israel; judging them a sort of persons who used a style, or graving-tool, to cut characters and pictures to work their enchantments by; see Fuller Miscellan. lib. v. cap. 1]. Hottinger, with most probability, conjectures the name to be taken from 17, which, in the Persian language, still signifies ‘to know,’ Ἢ being changed into 8, as is usual. For all such impostors do always represent themselves as persons endued with excellent skill and knowledge, and as such are they by the common people esteemed. They were a sort of people who pretended to supernatural operations by virtue of a hidden power present with them, that is, diabolical. The next mentioned are the Ashaphim, distinguished from the Chartumim as another sort and sect, by Vau copulative. Aben Ezra renders them by D°X517%, ‘ physicians.’ Some would have the name the same with the Greek σοφοι, and so a general name for all professors of secret knowledge, and of the causes of things natural. In the Concordance of Rabbi Nathan, ΠΝ is 7M, ‘a seer, a prophet, a prognosticator. The third sort are the Mecashphim, from }ws, ‘to divine,’ see 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6; Deut. xviii.; Exod. xxii. 17. Maimonides, and many that follow him among the Jews, suppose these to have been such as framing images and pictures of things above, included such powers in them by incantation, as could intercept the influences of the heavenly bodies, and thereby produce rare and wonderful effects, but always hurtful and noxious. Of the Chasdim we have spoken before. He that would further satisfy himself in the nature of the arts they professed, may consult Maimonides in More Nebuchim, lib. ii. cap. 37; Polydor. Virgil de Rerum Incantor, p. 85; Rhodigni. Var. Lec. lib. 9, cap. 23; Sixtus Sinensis Biblioth. Tit. Curio sacrarum Artium libri Danevi de Prestigiatoribus; Kircher. Oed. Tom. ii. part 2, fol. 456; Bangius Coelum Orientale; Perkins on Witchcraft. Delrio. Disquisit. Rerum Magicarum, lib. i. cap. 2, lib. 11. Pelan. in Daniel, cap. 2, ver. 2; Gierus in Daniel. Agrippa de Occulta Philosophia, &c. Strabo informs us, that in his time they had lost all their skill and arts, and that the remainders of them were only a kind of priests that attended to sacrificing, lib. 17, and says that one Cheremon, who went along with A®lius Gallus, the governor of Egypt, undertaking still to practise these arts, was ridiculous to all for his ignorance and arrogance.
I have diverted to the consideration of these sorts of men, as finding some of them in this space of time, before the giving of the law, looked on as those who had more than ordinary acquaintance and intimacy with the deities in common veneration, and were thereon esteemed as priests and sacred. But it is plain that they were such as the devil excited, actuated, and after a sort inspired, to draw off the minds of men from the knowledge and fear of the only true God, and his worship. Wherefore, notwithstanding their pretence of interposing between men and a divine power, (which Satan made use of) from thence to discover things hidden, and to effect marvellous operations; and although at length they became public sacrificers, yet are they to be utterly excluded from all consideration in those prelibations and prefigurations of the priesthood of Christ, which from divine institution were diffused amongst mankind by catholic tradition.