1. Prefigurations of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. 2. The original, use, and practice of sacrifices before the law—Rabbinical conceits on Ps. 69:32—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 and in the church. 5. By whom those sacrifices were offered. 6. This further inquired into. 7. The rights of primogenitors—What Jacob took from Reuben, Gen. 49:3, 4. 8. Jews' apprehension of the rights of the first-born. 9. The right of sacrificing continued unto 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 Hyksos in Manetho applicable to the Hebrews only. 14. Who were the priests of Egypt. 15, 16. The wise men, sorcerers, magicians 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 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 discharge of this office, until "the fulness of time" came, after the expiration 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 into, with reference unto these prefigurations of the priesthood of Christ, may be referred unto 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 Melchizedek, which fell within that period of time. (3.) The institution of 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 the order of priesthood, from and after the first promise and the institution of expiatory oblations, unto the solemn giving of the law in the wilderness, when 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 is evident from many particular instances recorded in the Scripture, 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 their carcasses not 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; for 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 clothed 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 those beasts seem rather to have been sheep or goats than the greater cattle of the herd, their skins being more meet for clothing. The Jews suppose that Adam sacrificed an ox or a bullock. So in the Targum on Ps. 69:32, קרנוי דקדימו קדמי אדם דקריב ובחיר פטים תור מן יי קדם צלותי ותשפר לטלפוהו;—"My prayer shall please God more than the fat and choice bullock, which Adam, the first man, offered, whose horns went before the dividing of the hoofs." To the same purpose Rashi comments on the place: בקומתו שנברא הראשו אדם שהקריב שור הוא פד משור, etc.;—"This is the ox which Adam, the first man, offered, which was created in his full stature; and they called him שור, 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 these words, מַפְרִים מַקְרִין, 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 unto 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. 4:3, 4; and Noah, Gen. 8:20; and Melchizedek, as we have showed, Gen. 14:20; and Abraham, Gen. 15:9, 10, 22:13; and Isaac, Gen. 26:25; and Jacob, Gen. 28:18, 35:3, 7; and Job, chap. 1:5, 42:8. Express mention of more 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 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 unto times and seasons, as the most of them, especially the most solemn, were afterwards under the law; and therefore I suppose their offering was occasional. Upon some appearance of God to them, on great mercies received, in times of great dangers, troubles, or perils, to themselves or 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, traduced by imitation from the patriarchs, were for a long season such as were offered in the times of approaching wars, after victories, and upon the solemn covenanting of nations or rulers; who yet in process of time also made use of stated solemn sacrifices, and of those that were confined to the interests of private families.
3. It doth not appear that there was as yet any peculiar office of priesthood erected or instituted. But the persons who enjoyed the revelation of the promise and the institution 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; as it includes an especial privilege, faculty, power, and duty, which being made common, their being ceaseth. But every one was 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 sacrifice, therefore every one was a priest in office. God giving out the prefigurations of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ πολυμερῶς, 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, sacrifice being a worship prescribed unto believing sinners, every one in his own person was to attend unto it, and did so at stated times or on solemn occasions, according as they apprehended the mind of God required 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 them, and to be performed in the name of the society. Especially is it so with respect to that which is the foundation of all others, in a household or family. So God gives unto Abraham the testimony of sincerity, that he would order and take care of his worship in his family, Gen. 18:19. Hence there were sacrifices peculiar unto families before the law, wherein it cannot be doubted but the father of the family was the sacred administrator. So Job offered burnt-offerings for himself and his family, chap. 1:5; and Jacob for his, Gen. 35:3, 7. 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. v. And the family ceremonies, in the sacrifice of an ox unto Hercules, by the Potitii and Pinarii, were adopted by Romulus and Numa into 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 Mosaical institutions, so they retained the latter from the original practice and tradition of the world. Even the meanest of the people continued their family libations. "Sacrima" they called the wine which their countrymen offered to Bacchus, as Festus testifies; and "carpur" 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 an yearly sacrifice, which was a free-will offering, and a feast thereon, 1 Sam. 20:6. But it may be by the הַיָּמִים זֶבַח there was intended 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 was pretended by David, yet is it hence evident that such things were in common use at that time, or no pretence could have been made of it. And if it was a sacrifice, it was offered by a legal priest, or the whole of it was an abomination. Philo, lib. iii. de Vita Mosis, admits all the people afresh to this duty at the passover: Νόμου προστάξει σύμπαν τὸ ἔθνος ἱερᾶται, τοῦ κατὰ μέρος ἑκάστου τὰς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ θυσίας ἀναγόντος τότε καὶ ἱερουργοῦντος·—"By the appointment of the law the whole nation sacrificeth" (or "is employed in sacred duties"), "whilst every one brings his own sacrifice and slays it." But this saying of his is not without its difficulties, and deserves further inquiry.
5. Persons united into greater societies for the ends of human conversation had, as we observed, the use of sacrifices 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 polity, rule, of 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 unto other nations, all under the conduct of divine Providence unto a certain designed end. In this state there were some that offered sacrifice for the whole people: Exod. 24:4, 5, "Moses builded 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 burntofferings, 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," chap. 19:22, 24, when as yet the office of the priesthood was not erected.
6. There hath been great inquiry who those 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 this opinion may be confirmed by the example of Melchizedek, who was the first called a priest of God in the world, being [according to them] Shem, the eldest son of Noah. But the whole of this argument is composed of most uncertain conjectures. It is uncertain whether Shem was the eldest son of Noah, and most probable that he was not so; more uncertain whether Melchizedek was Shem or no; yea, it is at the next door to 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 Melchizedek, he must have been so according to that common order whereof his priesthood was, which is contrary unto his singular call to that office. And if an extraordinary instance may contribute any thing unto satisfaction in this inquiry, that of Moses is express to the contrary. He was a priest unto God: Ps. 99:6, "Moses and Aaron among his priests." And there is not any thing peculiar unto 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 he 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 teraphim and graven images, consecrated מִבָּנָיו אַחַד, one of his sons from amongst them, which he thought meet, without regarding the primogeniture, Judges 17:5. I the אֶל־יְהֹוָה הַנִּגָּשִׁים הַכֹּהֲנִים, have formerly thought that Exod. 19:22, 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, chap. 24:5,—were 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 unto 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 unto Reuben his eldest son: Gen. 49:3, 4, "Reuben, thou art my first-born, 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,—בכראותא; 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 further evidence, is not sufficient to determine this case. The privileges of the first-born were certainly great from the beginning. There was בְּכוֹרָה מִשׁפַּט, 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, אוֹנִי וִרֵאשִׁית כֹּחי,—"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: הבְּכֹרָה מִשְׁפַּט לֹו אֹנֹו רֵאשִׁית הוּא;—"He is the beginning of his strength; his is the right of primogeniture," Deut. 21:17. Hence this right was confined unto the first-born of the father only, and not to the firstborn of the mother, if her husband had 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. 21:15–17. There was, indeed, a privilege that belonged unto the first-born of every mother, by virtue of the especial law about רֶחֶם פֶּטֶר, him that opened the womb; for every such an one was to be "sanctified" or separated unto the Lord, Exod. 13:2; which among men was restrained unto the male: chap. 22:29, "The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." And therefore we have added, in way of exposition of this law, in our translation, chap. 34:19, "All that openeth the matrix is mine" (that is, the males). And it was instead of the first-born males only that the Levites were taken in exchange, Num. 3:40–42. But this was a peculiar ceremonial law and privilege. There were two things that eminently belonged unto the πρωτοτοκεία, 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 אַחַד שְׁבֶם, Gen. 48:22, "one part" or "shoulder," to bear the charge of his own especial family, so the first-born was to have שְׁנַ ם פִּי, Deut. 21:17, that is, διτλᾶ or μέρος διπλοῦν, "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. 48. And there also belonged hereunto civil pre-eminence 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 him. So do the words of God to Cain plainly signify: "Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him," Gen. 4:7. And when God transferred in prophecy the birthright from Esau to Jacob, he did it in these words, "The elder shall serve the younger," chap. 25:23; 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," chap. 27:29. And so he tells Esau afterwards, "Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants," verse 37. And this was by Jacob taken from Reuben and given unto Judah. Both these are expressly mentioned, 1 Chron. 5:1, 2, "Reuben was the first-born; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto 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 unto it. I will 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 Masseceth Becaroth Peresh. 8, divide the rights of the primogeniture in נחלה and כהנה, "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 unto the priesthood properly so called. As far as it had its foundation in the law of nature, it was an offering unto God of the first-fruits of the family, all primitiœ being due unto him; and hereby was the whole family made sacred and dedicated unto God: for "If the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy," Rom. 11:16. 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 Jerome from them, on Gen. 17:27, Epist. 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 first-born of the creation, as to rule, Col. 1:15, 18, Rev. 1:5, Heb. 1:6; as to inheritance, Heb. 1:3, 4, Eph. 1:20; and as to sanctifying the whole family, Heb. 2:11.
9. Yet all that hath been spoken, or that may further be pleaded to the same purpose, doth not necessarily conclude that the right unto sacrificing by way of office was enclosed 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 unto 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 unto 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 unto him. Herein it is probable he had the especial assistance of the first-born 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. I no 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 unto the discharge of his duty herein; which after the giving of the law was not provided for. But this respected man only. Women were afterwards, among the heathen, admitted into 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; for "the head of the woman is the 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, being 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 expresses the first two 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 came originally in the world to be designed unto 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 Melchizedek 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 this order of things came to pass in the world, or when,—that some certain persons, under the name of priests, should have the administration of things sacred 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."
Æn. ii. 201.
And in Statius it was by the choice of the people that Theodamas was made the priest of Apollo in the room of Amphiaraus. So he speaks to them, Thebaid. lib. x.: 189:—
——"Non hæ nostro de pectore voces:
Ille 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 kings, upon their removal the people created priests by suffrage among themselves, and one under the name of "rex sacrorum," that by the continuance 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. v. So Livy: "Rerum deinde divinarum habita cura: et quia, quædam publica sacra per ipsos reges factitata erant, ne ubiubi regum desiderium esset, regem sacrificulum creant," lib. ii. cap. ii. 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 coalescences 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 political societies, which have a resemblance unto 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 as they had tradition but no history of: Κύριοι ἦσαν τῆς δὲ κατὰ πόλεμον ἡγεμονίας, καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν ὅσαι μὴ ἱεροτικαί·—"They were rulers of things belonging unto 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: Στρατηγὸς ἦν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς κύριος, Aristot. Polit. lib. iii.;—"The king was general, judge, and lord of things sacred." And Cicero: "Apud veteres, qui rerum potiebantur iidem auguria tenebant; ut enim sapere, sic divinare regale ducebant:" De Divin. lib. i. cap. xl. The truth is, the use of sacrificing among the Gentiles, by the time we meet with any probable records of things among them, was much restrained, and principally attended unto in and with respect unto 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 was 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 traduced from the practice of families, it is evident that they were very quickly separated again, and vested in diverse persons, yet so as still to reserve unto kings and generals the privilege of sacrificing expiatory oblations in war; which they did sometimes by the death of beasts, sometimes of 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 later 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 Mohammed, 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 unto the caliphs, the principal dignity remaining unto them being an allowance to wear those garments and colours which they did as successors to Mohammed, when they had all the power. See Elmacin. Histor. Saracen. lib. iii. cap. ii. It might have so fallen out with those 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. And thence, it may be (which Athenæus 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 Phœbique sacerdos."
And the most ancient reports among the heathen, both in the Eastern and Grecian traditions, mention these offices as distinctly exercised by diverse persons. Homer hath his priests as well as his kings, though that which then was peculiar to them was divination, and not sacrificing.
Thirdly, Priests among the heathen might have their original from some extraordinary afflatus, real or pretended. It was with respect unto their gods that men had thoughts of sacrificing, or of the way of it. And the world was generally now become utterly at a 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 themselves to be divinely inspired, and were as easily believed; for men who are utterly destitute of all means of divine and supernatural direction are given up unto as great an excess in facile credulity, as they are unto 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 men wise and sober in the proposal of sacred truths, upon the highest and most evident warranty, unto the sceptical atheism of rebels against the light; so the former encouraged crafty impostors to impose their pretended inspirations on the credulous multitude, as that they easily gave up unto 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 unto 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 further 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. 41:45, 47:22, 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 thereof. 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, arts, and sciences, they fixed on, and tenaciously adhered unto, such observances in their superstition as were ridiculous and contemptible unto 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, particularly 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 those institutions themselves which Moses gave them in the wilderness, and some that God had peculiarly given unto Abraham. Whether a due reverence unto, 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 unto 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 allowed not Moses the interposition of any one word or conception of his own, but made him a mere internuncius, 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 they were enjoined 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 unto the people. But whereas 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), so I shall say, that if any learned man can produce any one evident testimony, or but such an 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.
13. An instance hereof, 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 Apion, lib. i., 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 sixteen hundred years after Abraham's being in Egypt. Out of this man's writings, and in his own words, he gives an account of a nation that was called Hyksos, which in the Egyptian language signifieth "kingly shepherds." This nation, as he says, entered Egypt and subdued it, holding it for about five hundred 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 the 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 unto 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 Hyksos, 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 is related in Exodus; and under their rule was the people delivered, as in the same story, in the reign of Apophis, 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 unto others the liberty of their judgment, I cannot but declare that to me either this whole story is a mere coined fable, or it is the Hebrews alone that are intended in it, or that credit is not to be given unto 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 unto the writings of this Manetho, and the skill he pretended in the antiquities of his country, or the sacred records from whence he boasteth to have transcribed 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 consistency with the story of the Hebrews, but was a mere figment of the Egyptians, designing their reproach. And if this Manetho was utterly ignorant, and had no tradition of what befell his country in that terrible desolation and ruin, the like whereof never befell any nation under heaven, what reason have we to give the least credit unto 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 Geoffrey 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, professing themselves to follow that course of life whence they were so denominated; and as such they were "an abomination unto the Egyptians." These things concurring with the ruin that befell Egypt at their departure, issued in such a 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 unto all; but as to the other sort, none can imagine whence they came, nor what was the end they were brought unto. (3.) They are said by this Manetho to come into Egypt without a king, but afterwards made one of themselves so, who "in time of harvest ordered the measures of corn, and paid men their allowances" (ἐνθά τε κατὰ θέρειαν ἤρχετο τὰ μὲν σιτομετρῶν καὶ μισθοφορίαν παρεχόμενος); which things have so plain a respect to Joseph as that he must shut his eyes who sees him not therein, especially since the times agree well enough. (4.) Joseph had the exercise of all regal power committed unto him, who was one of the shepherds, and made laws and statutes, yea, changed the whole political interest of Egypt and the tenure of their lands, 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. 47:20–26. Now, this story supposeth that immediately after the death of Joseph came in a new nation, 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 Hyksos, 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 sixteen hundred 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 four hundred years, and afterwards to be judged of God for their oppression, Gen. 15:13, 14. Now, this cannot be affirmed, if they first went down unto one nation, and then were afflicted 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 Mizraimites or Egyptians constantly; and although these Hyksos should have been in Mizraim, or Egypt, yet if they were not of the posterity of Mizraim, it could not be said in what they did that it was done by the Mizraimites. They were Egyptians who first received them and kindly entertained them; Egyptians they were who oppressed them and were their taskmasters; an Egyptian it was that Moses slew for his cruelty; Egyptians they were 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 Hyksos to have held peculiarly in garrison were most probably those built by the Israelites whilst oppressed by the Egyptians. It is generally agreed that Pithom, which was built by them, Exod. 1:11, was the same with Pelusium, and this the same with Abaris, which the Hyksos 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 consider 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 Hyksos, and not the Egyptians, and withal as it is said that the Egyptians in Thebais always waged war with these Hyksos, 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 Hyksos continued to rule in Egypt two or three hundred 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 of the desolation which befell it thereby. "Malum habitat in aliendo 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 Mosaical religious institutions were taken from the usages and customs of the Egyptians in their sacred rites.
14. But to return. The כּהֲנִים, 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 its places "priests" or "princes." At first they were designed by common consent to take care of the "sacra" which belonged unto 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 extravagancies 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 unto a familiarity and acquaintance with them, took the office upon themselves, promising supernatural effects in the execution of it. There seem to be three sorts of them expressed, Exod. 7:11. There are the חַכָמִים, "chacamim;" and מְכַשְּׁפִים, "mecashshephim," and חַרְטֻמִּים, "chartummim." The "chacamim," which we render "wise men," are distinguished from the "mecashshephim," or "sorcerers;" but the "chartummim," or "magicians," seem to comprise both the other sorts, the "chacamim" and "mecashshephim:" "Then Pharaoh called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments." But Gen. 41:8, the "chacamim," or "wise men," are distinguished from the "chartummim," or "magicians," as they are here from the "mecashshephim," or "sorcerers;" and therefore we shall consider them distinctly.
The חַכָמִים are constantly rendered by the LXX. σοφοί, 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 they who afterwards, when the contemplation of things secret and hidden first found acceptance and then applause in Greece, were called σοφοί and then φιλόσοφοι. But the original of their studies seem 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," expiring as it began. Wherefore these "chacamim," now of such reputation in Egypt, were such as had separated themselves unto the study of curious arts and the speculation of hidden things; into whose contemplations Satan variously insinuated himself, giving them an esteem and honour among the common people on the account of their skill in things unto them unknown; they gratifying him, on the other hand, in promoting his design for 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 unto their trade and profession, for we hear not of their use on any other occasion. Exod. 7:11, the LXX. render חַכָמִים by σοφισταί, "Men subtle to deceive." Hence, probably, in the expression of what was done by their counsel, Luke useth σοφισάμενος, "dealt subtilly," Acts 7:19.
Those joined in one place with these wise men are the מְכַשְּׁפִים. The name is originally Hebrew, from כָּשַׁף, "præstigias exercuit." The LXX. render it by φαρμακοί, "venefici;" and the Targum by חרש, "præstigiator," "jugglers, impostors," and also "conjurers." They seem to have pretended unto the revelation or discovery of things secret and hidden; whence the Arabic כשף signifies "to uncover," "to reveal," "to make known." Such a sort of impostors the world was always pestered withal, which were of old in great reputation, though now the scorn of the multitude. Probably they had an access unto the administration of things sacred, whence the word in the Syriac denotes "to pray," "to administer in things holy," and "to sacrifice." The "chartummim" are those unto 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, unto whom this diabolical skill and practice were traduced from Egypt. The LXX. render them, Gen. 41:8, ἐξηγηταί, "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. 7:11, they render it ἐπαοιδοί, "incantatores," "enchanters." The Vulgar Latin omits the name, and to supply that omission renders בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם, "per incantationes Egyptiacas," "by their Egyptian enchantments." Some render it by "genethliaci," which Aben Ezra gives countenance unto on Dan. 2:2, calling them התלדות חכמי, "men skilled in casting nativities;" others by "malefici, arioli, magi, necromantici," "witches, conjurers, magicians;" Targum, חרשים; in the common translation, Gen. 41:8, "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. 3:8, as they are likewise spoken of in the Talmud, and are joined with Moses by Pliny, as persons famous in arts magical. 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 unto 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, ἀντέστησαν,—"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,—even 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 כֹּהֲנִים, "cohanim," were in the Egyptian language called חַשְׁמַנִּים, "chashmannim," who are mentioned Ps. 68:32, which we render "princes," who are said to come out of Egypt in the profession of subjection unto the kingdom of Christ; for the word is Egyptian, and nowhere else used.
16. Unto these Egyptian artists two other sorts were added among the Babylonians, Dan. 2:2. Besides the "chartummim" and "mecashshephim," which managed these arts in Egypt, whence their skill and names were traduced unto the Chaldeans, there were among their wise men אַשָּׁפִים, "ashshaphim," and כַּשְׂדִּים, "casdim" also. How these two sorts were distinguished between themselves, or from the others named with them, is altogether unknown. Strabo tells us that the astrologers, magicians, and philosophers, among the Chaldeans, were called by various names: Καὶ γὰρ Ὀρχηνοι τινες προσαγορεύονται, καὶ Βορσιππηνοὶ, καὶ ἄλλοι πλείους, lib. xvi. cap. i.;—"Some were called Orcheni, and some Borsippeni; as also there were other sorts of them." "Ashshaphim" are rendered "philosophers, astronomers, astrologers, physicians," merely on conjecture, and not from any signification of the name, which is unknown. The "casdim," or Chaldeans, seem to have been a sort of people that claimed their pedigree in an especial manner from the first inhabitants of those parts, being the posterity of Chesed, the son of Nahor. These, probably, being overpowered by a confluence of other sects of men, be-took themselves unto those curious arts which afterwards were famous, or [rather] infamous, throughout the world under their name; for the prognostication of future events, which they pretended unto, is a thing that the world always despised and yet inquired after. So Strabo describes them: Ἀφώριστο δʼ ἐν τῆ Βαβυλωνίᾳ κατοικία τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις φιλοσόφοις, τοῖς Χαλδαίοις προσαγορευομένοις, [ubi supra;]—"There is in Babylonia a peculiar place of habitation assigned unto 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 in Dan. 2:2. The first are the "chartummim." They were they to whom all the magical operations in Egypt are ascribed; and the name itself is Egyptian, though some would have it of a Hebrew extract. R. Saadias would derive it from חוּר, "a hole;" and אָטוּם, "shut," or "closed;" supposing they gave their answers from a hole in the earth, as the oracle at Dodona out of an oak. Some deduce it from חָרַט, as Avenarius and Manasseh 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. xi. Hottinger, with most probability, conjectures the name to be taken from חרד, which in the Persian language still signifies "to know," ד being changed into ט, 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. A sort of people they were pretending to supernatural operations by virtue of a hidden power present with them,— that is, diabolical. The next mentioned are the "ashshaphim," distinguished from the "chartummim," as another sort and sect, by vau copulative. Aben Ezra renders them by הרופאים, "physicians." Some would have the name the same with the Greek σοφοί, and so a general name for all professors of secret knowledge, and of the causes of things natural. In the Concordance of Rabbi Nathan, אשף is חוזה, "a seer, a prophet, a prognosticator." The third sort are the "mecashshephim," from כָּשַׁף, "to divine." See 2 Chron. 33:6; Deut. 18:10; Exod. 22:17. 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 "casdim" 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. iii. cap. xxxvii.; Polydor. Virgil. de Rerum Incantor. p. 85; Rhodigni. Var. Lec., lib. ix. cap. xxiii.; Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Tit. Curio Sacrarum Artium libri; Danæus de Præstigiatoribus; Kircher. Œd. tom. ii. part. ii. fol. 456; Bangius Cœlum Orientale; Pictures of Witchcraft; Delrio, Disquisit. Rerum Magicarum, lib. i. cap. ii., lib. ii.; Pelan. in Dan. 2:2; Geierus in Daniel; Agrippa de Occulta Philosophia, etc. 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 priest that attended unto sacrificing, lib. xvii.; and he says that one Chæremon, who went along with Ælius Gallus, the governor of Egypt, undertaking still to practise their arts, was ridiculous unto all for his ignorance and arrogance.
I have diverted unto 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 acquaintance and intimacy with the deities in common veneration than ordinary, and were thereon esteemed as priests and sacred. But it is plain that they were such as the devil excited, acted, 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, to discover things hidden, and to effect marvellous operations, as also that 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 derived themselves from divine institution through the catholic tradition of mankind.
—————————
HAVING made this entrance into what I had designed concerning the prefigurations of the priesthood of Christ in the church and in the world, I find the full discussion of all things thereunto belonging will require larger discourses than either my present indisposition as unto health will allow me to engage into, or the printer's haste admit of a stay for. Wherefore, having despatched the whole doctrinal part of the sacerdotal office of Christ, which was my principal design in these Exercitations, I do crave the reader's pardon to transmit the remainder of our historical observations unto the publication of another part of our Exposition of the Epistle, if God shall be pleased to afford that occasion and opportunity.
THE NAME, ORIGINAL, NATURE, USE, AND CONTINUANCE OF A DAY OF SACRED REST:
THE ORIGINAL OF THE SABBATH FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, THE
MORALITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, WITH THE CHANGE OF THE SEVENTH DAY, ARE INQUIRED INTO;
AN ASSERTION OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S DAY, AND
———
Διὰ δυσφημίας καὶ εὐφημίας—2 COR. 6:8.
Search the Scriptures.—JOHN 5:39.
THERE are two great concerns of that religion whose name thou bearest, —the profession of its truth, and the practice or exercise of its power. And these are mutually assistant unto each other. Without the profession of faith in its truth, no man can express its power in obedience; and without obedience profession is little worth. Whatever, therefore, doth contribute help and assistance unto us in either of these, according to the mind of God, is to be highly prized and valued. Especially it is so in such a season as this, wherein the former of them is greatly questioned, and the latter greatly neglected, if not despised. But if there be any thing which doth equally confirm and strengthen them both, it is certainly of great necessity in and unto religion, and will be so esteemed by them who place their principal concerns in these things. Now, such is the solemn observation of a sacred weekly day of rest unto God; for amongst all the outward means of conveying to the present generation that religion which was at first taught and delivered unto men by Jesus Christ and his apostles, there hath been none more effectual than the catholic, uninterrupted observation of such a day for the celebration of the religious worship appointed in the gospel. And many material parts of it were unquestionably preserved by the successively-continued agreement of Christians in this practice. So far, then, the profession of our Christian religion in the world at this day doth depend upon it. How much it tends to the exercise and expression of the power of religion cannot but be evident unto all, unless they be such as hate it,—who are not a few. With others it will quickly appear unto a sober and unprejudicated consideration; for no small part hereof doth consist in the constant payment of that homage of spiritual worship which we owe unto God in Jesus Christ. And the duties designed thereunto are the means which he hath appointed for the communication of grace and spiritual strength unto the due performance of the remainder of our obedience. In these things consist the services of this day; and the end of its observation is their due performance, unto the glory of God and the advantage of our own souls. Whereas, therefore, Christian religion may be considered two ways;—first, as it is publicly and solemnly professed in the world, whereon the glory of God and the honour of Jesus Christ do greatly depend; and, secondly, as it prevails and rules in the minds and lives of private men,—neither of them can be maintained without a due observance of a stated day of sacred rest. Take this away, neglect and confusion will quickly cast out all regard unto solemn worship. Neither did it ever thrive or flourish in the world from the foundation of it, nor will do so unto its end, without a due religious attendance unto such a day. Any man may easily foresee the disorder and profaneness which would ensue upon the taking away of that whereby our solemn assemblies are guided and preserved. Wherefore, by God's own appointment, it had its beginning and will have its end with his public worship in this world. And take this off from the basis whereon God hath fixed it, and all human substitutions of any thing in the like kind to the same purposes will quickly discover their own vanity. Nor without the advantage which it affords, as it is the sacred repository of all sanctifying ordinances, will religion long prevail in the minds and lives of private men; for it would be just with God to leave them to their own weaknesses and decays,—which are sufficient to ruin them,—who despise the assistance which he hath provided for them, and which he tenders unto them. Thus, also, we have known it to have fallen out with many in our days, whose apostasies from God have hence taken their rise and occasion. This being the case of a weekly sacred day of rest unto the Lord, it must needs be our duty to inquire and discern aright, both what warrant we have for the religious observance of such a day, as also what day it is in the hebdomadal revolution that ought so to be observed. About these things there is an inquiry made in the ensuing discourses, and some determinations on that inquiry. My design in them was to discover the fundamental principles of this duty, and what ground conscience had to stand upon in its attendance thereunto; for what is from God in these things is assuredly accepted with him. The discovery hereof I have endeavoured to make, and therewithal a safe rule for Christians to walk by in this matter, so that for want thereof they may not lose the things which they have wrought. What I have attained unto of light and truth herein is submitted to the judgment of men learned and judicious. The censures of persons heady, ignorant, and proud, who speak evil of those things which they know not, and in what they naturally know corrupt themselves, I neither fear nor value. If any discourses seem somewhat dark or obscure unto ordinary readers, I desire they would consider that the foundations of the things discoursed of lie deep, and that no expression will render them more familiar and obvious unto all understandings than their nature will allow. Nor must we in any case quit the strengths of truth because the minds of some cannot easily possess themselves of them. However, I hope nothing will occur but what an attentive reader, though otherwise but of an ordinary capacity, may receive and digest. And they to whom the argument seems hard may find those directions which will make the practice of the duty insisted on easy and beneficial. The especial occasion of my present handling this subject is declared afterwards. I shall only add, that here is no design of contending with any, of opposing or contradicting any, of censuring or reflecting on those whose thoughts and judgments in these things differ from ours, begun or carried on. Even those by whom a holy day of rest under the gospel and its services are laughed to scorn are by me left unto God and themselves. My whole endeavour is to find out what is agreeable unto truth about the observance of such a day unto the Lord; what is the mind and will of God concerning it; on what foundation we may attend unto the services of it, as that God may be glorified in us and by us, and the interest of religion, in purity, holiness, and righteousness, be promoted amongst men.
January 11, 1671.
THE NAME, ORIGINAL, NATURE, USE, AND CONTINUANCE, OF A DAY OF SACRED REST
———
