and Curatii, was saved by popular acclamation from the death which he had incurred by killing his sister: but it was held necessary that his father should provide an expiation by sacrifices, at the public expense. Ut cædes manifesta aliquo tamen piaculo lueretur, imperatum patri ut filium expiaret pecunia publica: is, quibusdam piacularibus sacrificiis factis, &c. Lib. i. 26. When the elder Decius devoted himself to death for the supposed salvation of his country, he was regarded "as sent by heaven to be an expiation to the wrath of the gods:"-sicut cœlo missus piaculum omnis deorum iræ. viii. 9. His son, in another public danger, followed his example, exclaiming that "it was granted to their family to be expiations to remove the perils of the state!" x. 28. In similar language is described the intention of Postumius, after the surrender at the Furcæ Caudinæ. ix. 10. Fabius Maximus attributed the successes of Hannibal to the wrath of the gods for his country's crimes, and began his dictatorship by a solemn inquiry what expiations could appease that wrath. xxii. 9. So Scipio pronounces the mutiny of his army to be a crime which "no sacrifices, no supplications, could expiate, but the blood of the offenders." xxviii. 27. So the violation of the sacred treasury at Locri, was held to require an expiatory sacrifice; and the college of priests was to determine what expiations were requisite, to what deities, and with what victims. xxix. 19. Other examples are furnished by the same charming and instructive author. Were one thus to go through all the Greek and Roman historians, the instances would swell to a vast collection: and the earlier are the times to which they belong, the more abundant and striking they are. Thus, in the earliest ages of mankind, while the impressions of primitive tradition, though so lamentably misapplied, and associated with the characteristic ferocity of polytheism, were not yet abraded by philosophy and civilization, thus strongly and universally did men recognize that their crimes insured the vengeance of superior powers, except its course was stayed by the atonement of sacrifices, often in a high degree difficult, costly,

and terrific. As amidst the errors of idolatry, it is easy to perceive the indelible effects of the primitive belief and worship of the Only God: so, under this mass of corruption, we obviously see the foundation of original truth.

The name of the month February is derived from an old. Roman word, Februa: which was a general term for sacrifices and ceremonies performed at the close of the year, for the expiation of all the sins of the expiring period. February was the last month in the ancient Roman year, in which it was "held an essential part of filial duty, to make atonement on the behalf of our parents, by a sacrifice of the greatest value." Cicero de Legibus, ii. 21. See the curious information of Ovid on the early religion of the Romans; Fasti, ii. 20-50, where among other interesting particulars, he says, "The fathers of the Roman state called expiations Februa:—In fine, whatever is a mean of atonement for our souls (quo pectora nostra piamur,) our unpolished ancestors called by this name:-Such expiations they believed would take away every sin and every cause of calamity." To the same effect the following remarkable passage is produced by Grotius from Pliny; [At vereor ne virum summum memoria fefellerit, mihi enim utriusque Plinii libros diligenter evolventi, loci hujus inveniendi causa, labor male cessit :] "From early times the ancient opinion has prevailed, that all observances were (februa) expiations, by which the consciences of sinners could be purged, and their sins blotted out; (conscientiæ purgarentur, delerenturque peccata.)" Ap. Grot. de Satisf. cap. x.

A recent work of the Marquis de Puysegur contains this striking passage: "Not knowing how man had offended God, the method which appeared to them [mankind in the early ages] the most proper and just for appeasing the Deity, was to shed the blood of the offender, and that the purest blood; for their sacrifices were almost always children, and those the children of the first families. All nations, without exception, have had their share in these terrible mysteries. In spite of the horror with which those practices fill us, in our state of cultivation, we cannot but perceive that

they were consistent with the convictions of their performers. -The idea that man could be saved in no other way than by the substitution of a victim, was as universal as the idea itself of a God; and indeed more universal than that of mere prayer, for travellers have discovered tribes whose rites presented no appearance of prayer in words, but they prayed by action, by the sacrificing of their victims." De l'Action Divine dans les Evénemens Humains; Paris, 1840; cited in the Sémeur, Aug. 12.

Note VII.-page 12.

PYTHAGOREANS, &c.

"Pythagoricorum factio hanc cum DEO unionem fieri posse statuit per purgationem animæ et corporis; hanc vero purgationem alii ex iis διὰ τῶν θυσιῶν καὶ τοῦ θυηπολικοῦ πυρὸς peragi posse sciscunt, quales Jamblichus, Syrianus, et Proclus; alii vero per philosophiam," &c. Brunneri Diss. de Theol. Nat. "The sect of the Pythagoreans maintained that this union with God was to be attained by the purification of both mind and body but this purification some of them conceived might be wrought out by sacrifices and the sacrificial fire, as Jamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus; but others regarded the doctrines of their philosophy as sufficient to answer this purpose.” Those of the disciples of Pythagoras who rejected animal sacrifices, as they did animal food, supported their practice entirely by arguments from humanity and reason, while they yielded the claim of antiquity. Porphyry, in his ingenious Treatise on Abstinence from Animals, sets up the hypothesis that men first offered the fruits of the earth, then each other, and lastly, the usual animals." Lib. ii. 27. He scarcely attempts a reply to the argument in defence of sacrifices, which he cites from Claudius Neapolitanus; that they were founded on immemorial custom and law, "not from the authority of men, but according to the appointment of God." Lib. i. 25. A fragment of an uncertain author in Photius affirms, that the Pythagoreans "abstained from animals, and tasted, at the

proper season, of the sacrifices only." Biblioth. ed. Hoeschel. 1612, p. 1313. As for Zaleucus (who was a Pythagorean), Plato, and the elder Platonists, it is very plain, that their objection was not to sacrifices, but to the notion of their sufficiency without a pious mind and personal virtue. See the noble preface to the Laws of Zaleucus, in Diodorus Siculus, xii. 20, and the celebrated passage of Plato in the Alcibiades Secundus, § 12, 13.

Note VIII. page 18.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION BY THE LEVITES.

The opinion here advanced may seem inconsistent with that of Michaelis. He regards the Levites as not merely an order of men set apart for the duties of the sanctuary, but as the general body of persons professing learning in all the faculties; ministers of religion, judges or rather expounders of the law, copyists and guardians of the sacred books, keepers of the genealogical registers, and superintendents of the national standards of weights and measures: and he goes on to say, "We nowhere find that Moses mentions, even incidentally, any such profession as that of our clergyman, or that he instituted preaching on the sabbath. The Levites cannot be justly compared with our preachers. This class of men, whose importance in a political point of view alone must be acknowledged, if they did nothing else than instruct the common people in morality, was wanting in the constitution of the Mosaic state and church. So, likewise, the priests of the gods in other nations were occupied, not in instruction, but in sacrifices and ceremonies. A body of teachers of religion, properly so called, did not exist among the Jews until after the Babylonish captivity; when the pressing emergencies of the church required its establishment. The Levites were so far the ministers of religion as that they performed holy ceremonies, copied the law, and in doubtful cases explained it. To them the original of the law was committed (Deut. xxxi. 9); they were to be its guardians, and to take care to make

correct transcripts of it.—The king had to take his copy of the law from theirs (Deut. xvii. 18.) They were bound, at the end of every seven years, to read over the law in the hearing of all the people (Deut. xxxi. 10—13); and even to be so conversant in it that they could, at least when questioned, give instructions concerning religion." Mosaic Law, Article lii. Dr. Alex. Smith's Translation; vol. i. p. 254-257.

But I conceive that there is no real opposition, in what I have advanced, to the statements of this eminent biblicist. It is not supposed that the Levites, or any part of their body, formed an ecclesiastical council for the decision of controversies purely religious; or that they, or any of them not specially called by God to the prophetic office, assumed infallibility to their declarations. It was a different thing (as Michaelis very justly argues in his Annotation on Deut. xvii. 10,) that, as a court of law, they formed a tribunal of the last resort, and from whose decisions no appeal lay. Such a supreme court is necessary in every nation, otherwise litigations would never end. The religious law of the Israelites was indeed intermingled with the political: but we are speaking, not of questions of practice, but of those regarding doctrine and elucidation, and are maintaining that the Levites had it in charge to explain religious subjects, not as dictators, but as well-informed and faithful men, each according to the measure of his knowledge and ability. Michaelis admits that the Levites explained the law, as well as read it publicly to the people, and were qualified to give instructions concerning religion.

A brief and perspicuous description of the different KINDS of the SACRIFICES and OFFERINGs prescribed in the Mosaic Law will be of general use in the reading of the Scriptures, and will cast much light upon the arguments in the preceding Discourses. I therefore select the following, from the (Biblisches Realwörterbuch, u. s. w.) Bible Dictionary of Persons, Things, and Facts; for the use of Students, Candidates for the Ministry, Teachers of Academic Youth, and Clergymen ; by George Benedict Winer, D.D., and Prof Theol. in the University of Leipzig. 2 vols. 1820, a work rich in information; but, I lament to say, deeply impregnated with the venom of